California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

Making Sense of 'Asylum Seekers'

by John Lawrence, November 4, 2018

According to the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees an asylum seeker is:

“A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

Notice that the definition does not include people who fear they might be murdered because of non-cooperation with a drug gang, for instance, or people who are fleeing poverty. So it would seem that those coming from Honduras or Guatemala would not qualify prima facie.

The second thing is that a definition put forward in 1951 might not be applicable 68 years later. It seems that this definition would apply more to individuals who are critics of the regime of their native country, like a Jamal Khashoggi, or a social group like the Muslims who were persecuted by the Buddhists in Myanmar or the Yazidis in Iraq.

So say the asylum seeker gains entry to the US and applies for asylum at the border. The asylum process takes an average of six months. It is very difficult because the applicant might have to travel hundreds of miles to get to the location where they are processed. Trump has maintained that a majority of asylum seekers just never show up in court. They have gained entry into the US and they just melt away never to be heard from again if they are lucky. Ipso facto they become illegal aliens. Well, the facts are that a majority do show up in court, but a sizable minority do not. So thousands just melt away into society and live secret lives.

The alternative to trusting asylum seekers to show up in court is to detain them. But how can you detain thousands at a time if that many show up together with children especially. This is what caused the recent furor when children were separated from their parents in detention facilities. Anyway it is inhumane to treat asylum seekers as prisoners. However, granting them entry to the US while they wait for a hearing is problematic as well. When huge numbers of asylum seekers come at the same time, it could consume a lot of taxpayer resources just dealing with them only to not grant them asylum and send them back. Even sending them back is problematic. What do you do - escort them to the border?

It would be better if asylum seekers were processed outside the country to begin with rather than being granted entry into the country only to have them melt away into society especially if the large majority of them do not qualify as refugees. Under the present system being threatened by a gang or poverty do not qualify a person for refugee status in the US. Europe has created for itself immense problems, including the rise of fascist leaders, by accepting too many refugees. It is easy for any society to be so inundated by applicants for refugees status that the society itself is threatened.

So what is the solution? Stop them at the border as Trump suggests? Let them come in and tolerate a large number slipping away? A quota system? Let so many in and that's it? I think Trump has suggested processing them right at the border before they gain entry. Not a bad idea especially if the majority will not qualify for refugee status. Also I think that the US should take more responsibility for alleviating poverty and violent conditions in Central and South American countries so that people have security and prosperity in their home countries. Then they won't have to be asylum seekers or illegal immigrants.

Off the Top of My Head

Border Security: Is There a Sane Approach?

by John Lawrence, November 3, 2018

The issue of border security has been so politicized that it's hard to decipher what might be a meaningful approach to the subject. It has been made the linchpin of Trump's attempt to rally his base before the upcoming election. Congress has been in a state of total inaction regarding this and many other subjects. Let's take a look at the two extreme positions on the subject, and see where a line might be drawn that represents a realistic approach.

The extreme Left would like to have open borders. That is nobody would be checked at the border. Anyone could come in, perhaps after showing some ID. There would be no border patrol or quasi military people at the border trying to prevent illegal entry so illegals could come right in. The extreme Right would like a strong border that would prevent anyone form entering illegally. They wouldn't be satisfied until not one person could enter the country illegally. Obviously, that would require a strong commitment of resources.

Right off the bat I reject Trump's proposal of building a wall. I think that would be the most expensive and least effective solution. However, I have to give Trump credit in the fact that it is inconceivable that any American citizen would approve of anyone entering the country illegally. Trump is right that, if you have open borders, you don't really have a country. No European country lets people enter illegally if they can do anything about it. When trains cross borders in Europe, I know from personal experience that guards with loaded rifles get on the train and check everyone's passport even in the middle of the night!

I am in favor of strong border security. The question is - as always - how much do you want to pay for that? The US defense budget is already so bloated with hundreds of military bases located all over the world that I would not be in favor of spending even more money to beef up border security. However, I would be in favor of shutting down at least half of those bases, perhaps diminishing the current defense budget in other ways as well, and using that money to beef up border security. Why are we defending other countries when they have the resources to defend themselves? This is a point Trump has made that he has yet to follow through on and perhaps never will, but it is a valid point. The implication is that the US defense budget should be diminished and spent on other things, and yet Trump has only added to it.

I would be in favor of diminishing the current defense budget which is predicated on the fact of defending the whole world and using part of the money to defend our own borders which means I would be in favor of beefing up border security but in a smart way - no wall. This means additional resources should be employed at the border to make it impossible for anyone to gain access illegally. These would include electronic patrols from tower to tower, satellite surveillance, helicopter surveillance, rapid deployment teams similar to the SEALs, Coast Guard boat patrols in the Rio Grande, drone patrols etc etc. With the expertise the US has, it could secure the border 100% if it transferred resources for that effort and diminished resources going into defending other countries which could provide their own security.

But not only the land border with Mexico needs defending. The Coast Guard should be beefed up patrolling the coasts so that no one can gain access by sea. Ports of entry should have more sophisticated means to detect illegal persons and contraband being smuggled into the US. The border with Canada should be better secured as well. Surveillance of aircraft attempting to circumvent land or sea entry needs to be addressed. People coming in on visas need to be tracked to make sure they leave when they are supposed to.

The sad fact is that so much money has been devoted to high tech weapons systems and aircraft that the idea of protecting our borders has been given short shrift. There's more money to be made for defense contractors like Boeing in building high performance aircraft and high tech weapon systems than there is in the relatively less expensive devices that could be developed to protect our borders. So the emphasis on defense spending is on war fighting rather than defending our borders. If more attention were paid to border security and more resources allocated towards it, the flow of illegal contraband such as drugs could be stopped in its tracks. As it is, the US not only tolerates the influx of illegal people but illegal goods such as drugs as well. One other point is that the US should expedite the flow of legal traffic through ports of entry such as the land port at San Ysidro, the world's busiest border crossing. While stemming the flow of illegal people and goods, the flow of legal transborder people and goods should be expedited. This has been happening at San Ysidro where I cross frequently to see the dentist in Tijuana. My SENTRI card gets me over the border in a short time rather than having to wait for hours to cross the border as in olden days.

My main point is that resources should be taken away from the kind of defense systems that the US currently employs which is an attempt to patrol the whole world and given to beefed up border security defense.

Off the Top of My Head

Dysfunctional Congress Will Keep Arguing Over Border Wall While Ignoring Real Issue

by John Lawrence, Jul 30, 2018

Trump wants a border wall to appease his base, and he threatens to shut down the government to get one. Really? Is that the best use of resources to deal with the problem? What really even is the problem? The problem is illegal immigration. Let's just deal with just that. No American citizen, liberal or conservative, left or right, should want illegal immigration. Does anyone want open borders? Really? We should want zero illegal immigration, and then we can argue about how much legal immigration we want and from which countries. That is a legitimate argument.

That said, then it's clear that the resources deployed to prevent illegal immigration are inadequate. In a country that spends a trillion dollars a year on defense, we can't even prevent a few poor and desperate South and Middle Americans from getting over the border? Then how are we ever to defend ourselves against someone who wants to do us real harm which most of them crossing illegally don't. But you never know, a few ISIS terrorists could also get in that way.

A much better way is to take resources away from the military-industrial complex and deploy them at the border. That means military manpower and technologically sophisticated apparatuses - en electronic wall if you will. An actual wall is very offensive to Mexico. It would be better to work with Mexico to prevent illeqal immigration. It is a non sequitur that the world's richest country can't stop an invasion at its borders no matter how small and how benign. There's also the issue of people coming in on visas and then overstaying them. Certainly this would not happen if the US followed up on those people and then deported them if need be. Then there's the issue of people entering illegally by plane, big or small, and by water. It's not just the land border that's the problem.

Instead of arguing pointlessly over whether we want a wall or we want "open borders," we should be arguing instead about how many resources should be deployed and of what types, how much manpower, how much surveillance etc. Instead the US spends a trillion dollars on stuff that is mainly worthless while ignoring the threat that actually exists.

7 TRUTHS ABOUT IMMIGRATION

by Robert Reich

Friday, July 13, 2018

1. A record high of 75 percent of Americans now say immigration is a “good thing” for the country. 

2. America needs more immigrants, not fewer, because our population is rapidly aging.  

3. Historically, new immigrants have contributed more to society in taxes than they have taken from society in terms of public assistance. 

4. Most immigrants don’t take jobs away from native-born Americans. To the contrary, their spending creates more jobs. 

5. Trump’s claim that undocumented immigrants generate more crime is dead wrong. Both legal and undocumented immigrants are significantly less likely to commit crimes than people born in the United States. 

6. Violent crime rates in America are actually at historical lows, with the homicide rate back to its level from the early 1960s. 

7. Illegal border crossings have been declining since 2014 – long before Trump’s “crackdown.” There is no “surge” in illegal immigration. 

Please spread the truth. 

Off the Top of My Head

Immigration: So What Is The Solution?

by John Lawrence, July 3, 2018

There has been a lot of turmoil lately over the subject of immigration. The Right wants to keep them all out; the Left wants to let them all in. No one, it seems, has a somewhat rational idea of how to solve the problem. There is a lot of heat, but little light. So here I offer a modest proposal for dealing with the immigration problem.

I divide it into three parts: 1) what to do with illegal immigrants that are already here, 2) how to keep potentially illegal immigrants out and 3) how to deal with legal immigration. As for #1, I think the court system should deal with them humanely. No separation of families. If they've been here a long time and have led constructive lives, grandfather them in. If they've been here a short time and/or have committed criminal acts, send them back. The court system should make those decisions. Especially if they have children who are American citizens, they should stay although they should not be given the rights of citizenship if they came here illegally.

2) Instead of devoting military resources to manning 1000 bases in every country in the world and spending almost the entire military budget of $1 trillion on foreign wars and threats, devote the lion's share of that budget to solving problems in our own hemisphere. A large share of that should go to preventing illegal immigration although it should be spent rationally not on some fantasy of a border wall. Most illegals get here by overstaying their visas. That program needs attention so that persons on visas are tracked to make sure they go back when their time is up. Secondly, a smart and sophisticated electronic and satellite patrol system should be set up at the border. The border patrol should be stepped up. Helicopter and camera surveillance should be implemented. In some places a wall or a virtual wall or a barrier of some kind should be put in place. It should be impossible just to raft across the Rio Grande and then take off on land. Human trafficking should be stopped.

Resources should be devoted to dealing with crime in Mexico and Central America and economic development should be undertaken there so people will be happy and secure in their home countries. This in lieu of our defense budget which is entirely misallocated and focused on Europe and Asia. It should be focused on our own border and our own hemisphere.

3) Immigration policy should focus almost exclusively on refugees. There is a refugee crisis going on all over the world, largely precipitated by wars in the Middle East which the US started. These countries were largely functional until George W Bush invaded Iraq based on a lie in 2003, and Obama encouraged the "Arab spring" and regime change. Europe, Germany in particular, is facing a a huge refugee crisis created by, guess who, us! Therefore, the US should be accepting a large number of those refugee immigrants that are now flooding Europe, and again the policy of economic development in their home countries which we have largely destroyed should be implemented. I totally disagree with Trump's policy of accepting as legal immigrants only the best and the brightest. We should be accepting refugees from all over the world as in Emma Lazarus' poem: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore." That was US immigration policy then. There is even more reason why it should be US immigration policy now. And besides it will alleviate the pressure that Europe is under causing the upsurge in right wing politicians there.

In short US immigration policy should be compassion towards those who have come here illegally and have led constructive lives, zero illegal immigration brought about by devoting a significant part of the defense budget to prevention and a legal immigration policy focused on refugees, most of which have been created by American wars in the Middle East.

Ripping Into Trump for Treating Children Worse Than Seized Property, Judge Orders Reunification of Separated Families

Published on Wednesday, June 27, 2018 by Common Dreams

"This ruling is an enormous victory for parents and children who thought they may never see each other again."

by Jessica Corbett, staff writer

 

0 Comments

Protesters walked though the streets of El Paso, Texas on June 21, 2018 to protest against the Trump administration's immigration policies. (Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

A federal judge in San Diego, California ruled late Tuesday that the more than 2,000 migrant children separated from their parents under the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy must be reunited with their families within 30 days—and children under age 5 must be returned to parents within two weeks.

"This ruling is an enormous victory for parents and children who thought they may never see each other again," declared Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, which fought for the families in court. "Tears will be flowing in detention centers across the country when the families learn they will be reunited."

<

📣 The judge ruled that the Trump administration must reunite separated families within 30 days, and children under 5 must be reunited with their parents within 14 days. #FamiliesBelongTogether

— ACLU (@ACLU) June 27, 2018

>

"The facts set forth before the court portray reactive governance—responses to address a chaotic circumstance of the government's own making. They belie measured and ordered governance, which is central to the concept of due process enshrined in our constitution," wrote (pdf) U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw. "This is particularly so in the treatment of migrants, many of whom are asylum seekers and small children."

The Trump administration's family separation policy was implemented without any standards for adequately tracking detained children taken from their parents, so as Sabraw noted, the "startling" and "unfortunate reality is that under the present system migrant children are not accounted for with the same efficiency and accuracy as property."

Karen Tumlin, director of legal strategy for the National Immigration Law Center, drew attention to the court's pointed criticism of federal officials treating children with less care than a detainee's personal effects:

Court rips into the U.S. government for the "startling reality" that it has failed to have any process for keeping track of kids ripped apart from their parents & has done a worse job keeping track of children it jails than it does of "property." #FamiliesBelongTogether 2/

— Karen Tumlin (@KarenTumlin) June 27, 2018

In addition to setting deadlines for reunification, Sabraw also issued a nationwide injunction to block officials from separating any more families—unless a parent "affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily declines to be reunited with the child...or there is a determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child"—and mandated that the government establish phone contact between separated children and their parents within 10 days.

While the ruling, which allows the case to proceed as a class action suit, was welcomed by the immigrant rights community, it is still unclear how officials will actually go about reuniting families, particularly if a parent already has been deported and their child remains in government custody.

Congratulations to the @ACLU for this enormous victory. The fight is not over, we are still unclear about what will happen to parents, including our clients, who were already deported without their children. The admim must clarify. #FamiliesBelongTogether https://t.co/AXW9NstHOB

— Texas Civil Rights Project (@TXCivilRights) June 27, 2018

Prior to Tuesday night's ruling, 17 states and the District of Columbia—all led by Democratic attorneys general—filed suit (pdf) with the U.S. District Court in Seattle over President Donald Trump's recent executive order that called for an end to the policy but which critics say trades "one form of child abuse for another."

"The new federal executive order does not bring back together the thousands of families that were torn apart by the Trump administration's policy, and it does not prevent families from being separated in the future," explained Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan. The attorneys general have not yet updated or withdrawn their case following the ruling in California.

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said at a Senate hearing on Tuesday that 2,047 children remain in government custody and claimed they could not be reunited with their parents because of the 1997 Flores agreement, which puts a 20-day limit on detaining families.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Off the Top of My Head

The US Has No Qualms About Invading Other Countries

by John Lawrence, June 26, 2018

So why not invade Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala and take out M-13. That should solve our immigration problems. Seriously, the migrant/refugee crisis will not abate until conditions improve in those Central American countries. There are just too many poor people in the world who have nothing to lose by risking death to move to an area where they feel they and their families will be better off. The migrant/refugee crisis is happening all over the world - in Europe, for example. Angela Merkel has made deals with Turkey and other countries to cut off refugee routes into Germany. Most European countries, after accepting large numbers of immigrants, have strengthened their borders. Otherwise, most of the Middle East and Africa would have moved there. Why live in a hellhole when you can migrate to a decent country and have a decent life for your family? That is exactly the crux of the matter.

Evidently, the only good paying jobs in Central America are with gangs doing drug and human smuggling. If the US took pains to improve the lives of the poor living there, they would probably not migrate here. But the US has its own internal refugee crisis - the homeless. And there is nowhere for them to go to improve their lives. Basically it's the same situation all over the world, and it'll only be exacerbated by the climate crisis. Poor people want a better life. So far the world's rich countries, the chief among them being the US, have done little or nothing to improve poor peoples' lives either here or abroad. The US puts primary emphasis on defense, in other words, keeping poor people in their places so they can't harm us. The US policy is to make the world safe for rich people, not to help the poor and the struggling. "Give me your poor, your huddled masses etc" is so passe. It's not what the US is about nor has it been about for many years.

The US needs to help Central American countries to improve the lives of poor people and get rid of the gangs who make a good living bringing drugs and people to the US. If economic conditions improved there, the migrant/refugee crisis at the southern US border would ameliorate. Of course, the US has a right to territorial integrity. That's where Trump and his base are right. However, there is a moral imperative to help others improve their lives in situ. Otherwise, the crisis will not abate. That goes for the homeless crisis in the US as well. Capitalism can only go so far to improve peoples' lives, but it is not far enough without precipitating the crisis of the poor and dispossessed all over the world. Beating our swords into plowshares would be a good first step. We spend much to much money on the War Department and not enough on the Peace Department. Oh, I guess that doesn't even exist. Silly me.

'Both Illegal and Unconstitutional': Trump Brazenly Suggests Immediate Deportations, Zero Due Process

Published on Sunday, June 24, 2018 by Common Dreams

"When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came," the president tweeted Sunday.

by Andrea Germanos, staff writer

 

3 Comments

President Donald Trump speaking at Arlington National Cemetery on May 28, 2018. President Donald Trump on Sunday called for immediately deporting immigrants—a group he referred to people who "invade our country"—without due process.

The ACLU hit back at president's proposal, calling it "both illegal and unconstitutional," as the right to due process extends to those who've entered the U.S. without documentation.

At roughly 11am, Trump sent out a pair of tweets, saying in part, "When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came."

We cannot allow all of these people to invade our Country. When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came. Our system is a mockery to good immigration policy and Law and Order. Most children come without parents...

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 24, 2018

....Our Immigration policy, laughed at all over the world, is very unfair to all of those people who have gone through the system legally and are waiting on line for years! Immigration must be based on merit - we need people who will help to Make America Great Again!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 24, 2018

📣 What President Trump suggested here is both illegal and unconstitutional.

Any official who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws should disavow it unequivocally. https://t.co/qsy58VACSB

— ACLU (@ACLU) June 24, 2018

"That's not how any of this works," the ACLU added in a comment about Trump's tweet.

It was just a year and half ago Trump swore he would "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States"—a point noted by Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.):

<

Dear @realDonaldTrump: Remember the oath you took to the Constitution at your relatively small inauguration? You should read the Constitution. The Due Process Clause applies to all persons, not just US citizens.

As @POTUS, you of all people need to follow law and order. https://t.co/CK8VSVrp8h

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) June 24, 2018

>

Ethics expert Norm Eisen, meanwhile, suggested the tweets were a sign the president's attack on the rule of law would widen its scope:

He's trying to use the most vulnerable as a battering ram in his ongoing attack on the rule of law. But if he can deprive them of due process, American citizens will be next. How long before new chant at his rallies is "lock them all up"? Now is the time to hold the line https://t.co/38wSQj3ghK

— Norm Eisen (@NormEisen) June 24, 2018

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Off the Top of My Head

If Trump Can Direct Military to Build Housing for Immigrants, He Can Tell Them to Build Housing for the Homeless

by John Lawrence

After the latest Trump imbroglio over separating immigrant families at the border, with the stroke of a pen, he now stops them from being separated. All well and good. It shows what a huge public outcry can accomplish. So now, since more and more families with children are showing up at the border, the US is running out of adequate facilities to shelter them until they get their day in court to determine if they should be admitted into the US or sent back where they came from.

Faced with this dilemma, Trump just rattled off the top of his head that he would direct the military to build housing for them. Very nice, but if he can do that, why can't he build housing for the homeless? The homeless situation is developing into a far greater crisis than is the situation of migrants fleeing violence and poverty in Central America. The homeless are American citizens fuhchrissake. How about making America Great Again by guaranteeing that every US citizen has adequate housing?

Politico reported:

President Donald Trump Wednesday ordered Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to provide facilities and care for migrants as part of the president’s move to stop separating families crossing the U.S. border with Mexico.

Trump’s executive order directs Mattis to “take all legally available measures” to provide any existing facilities available to house and care for migrant families — and build whatever other facilities might be needed.

So the President can order the military to "build whatever other facilities might be needed." That's reassuring because the next Democratic President can just order facilities to be built to house the homeless without even going through Congress!

This President seems capable of ordering anything without the Congressional tie-ups and filibusters that Obama experienced. Why did Obama try to get everything through Congress if he could just order it done like Trump does? Very interesting. Probably Trump won't order the military to build housing for the homeless, but the next Democratic President should take a page out of Trump's book and just do it. Have we come to the age of the Imperial Presidency? It sure looks like it with Trump at the helm. Who needs Congress? He just orders it, and it's done.

And the same goes for international diplomacy. Who needs all the fol de rol of sending hordes of bureaucrats when the President can just dial up a dictator like Kim Jong Un and arrange a summit? Peace in the world by fiat? Certainly possible. Give Trump at least credit for that. He's broken the ice of a sclerotic bureaucracy.

Trump’s America: Open to Global Capital, Not People

by Robert Reich

Sunday, January 28, 2018

Trump to global CEOs and financiers in Davos, Switzerland: “America is open for business.” We’re now a great place for you to make money. We’ve slashed taxes and regulations so you can make a bundle here.  

Trump to ambitious young immigrants around the world, including those brought here as children: America is closed. We don’t want you. Forget that poem affixed to the Statue of Liberty about bringing us your poor yearning to breathe free. Don’t even try.

In Trump’s America, global capital is welcome, people aren’t.

Well, I have news for the so-called businessman. America was built by ambitious people from all over the world, not by global capital.

Global capital wants just one thing: A high return on its investment.

Global capital has no obligation to any country or community. If there’s another place around the world where taxes are lower and regulations laxer, global capital will move there at the speed of an electronic blip.

Global capital doesn’t care how it gets a high return. If it can get it by slashing wages, outsourcing to contract workers, polluting air and water, defrauding investors, or destroying communities, it will.

People are different. Once they’ve rooted somewhere, they generally stay put. They develop webs of connections and loyalties.

If they’re ambitious – and, let’s face it, the one characteristic that almost all immigrants to America have shared for more than two centuries is ambition – they develop skills, educate their kids, and contribute to their communities and their nation.

My great grandfather arrived in America from Ukraine. He was nineteen years old and penniless. What brought him here was his ambition. He built a business. He started a family.

Then he invited his brothers and sisters from Ukraine to join him. He put them up in his home and gave them some of his savings to start their own lives as Americans.

You may call it “chain migration,” Mr. Trump, but we used to call it “family reunification.” We believed it wasn’t just humane to allow members from abroad to join their loved ones here, but also good for the America. It made the nation stronger and more prosperous.

By the way, Mr. Trump, global capital doesn’t create jobs. Jobs are created when customers want more goods and services. Nobody invests in a business unless they expect consumers to buy what that business will produce. Those consumers include immigrants.

Consumers are also workers. The more productive they are and the better they’re paid, the more goods and services they buy – creating a virtuous circle of higher wages and more jobs.

They become more productive and better paid when they have access to good schools and universities, good health care, and well-maintained transportation systems linking them together.  

This combination – people rooted in families and communities, supplemented by ambitious young immigrants, all aided by good education and infrastructure – made America the economic powerhouse it is today.  

Along the way, regulations proved to be necessary guardrails. We protected the environment, prevented fraud, and tried to stop financial entities from gambling away everyone’s savings, because we came to see that capitalism without such guardrails is a mudslide.

We didn’t accomplish what we’ve achieved by cutting taxes and slashing regulations so global investors could make more money in America, while preventing ambitious immigrants from coming to our shores.

We raised taxes – especially on big corporations and wealthy individuals – in order to finance good schools, public universities, and infrastructure. We regulated business. And we welcomed immigrants and reunited families.

Global capital came our way not because we were a cheap place to do business but because we were fabulously productive and innovative place to do business.  

Now Trump and his rich backers want to undo all this. No one should be surprised. When they look at the economy they only see money. They’ve made lots of it.

But the real economy is people. America should be open to ambitious people even if they’re dirt poor, like my great grandfather. It should also be open to their relations, whose family members here will give them a start. 

It should invest in people, as it once did.

America didn’t become great by global capital seeking higher returns but by people from all over world seeking better lives. And global capital won’t make it great again. 

Off the Top of My Head

Trump's SOTU Speech and his Immigration Proposal

by John Lawrence

All in all Trump's speech was dignified, and he made good use of his guests' stories and anecdotes. The rest was platitudes except for his immigration proposal. I wish someone had come on first with a big sign that read "SAVE YOUR APPLAUSE UNTIL THE END." Who wants to hear Congressman applauding for half the time of an hour speech?

As for Trump's immigration proposal, it seems to me that the onerous parts of it are a small price to pay in return for securing the futures of millions of illegal Dreamers who are  totally in limbo at the present time and are in danger of being deported very soon. Chuck Schumer and the Democrats are proving themselves to be a bunch of stupid dopes if they can't see that $25 billion for a stupid wall that will probably never be built because it's impractical or at least it won't be built out completely during Trump's tenure, is a small price to pay for securing the lives and futures of as many as 1.8 million Dreamers including those who hadn't come out of the closet yet.

Really, Democrats? You would sacrifice those Dreamers on the altar that you don't like what Trump's proposal would do to legal immigration? The lottery thing is pure garbage and should be done away with. The chain immigration thing is a little harsh but at least it allows reconciliation of the nuclear family. Why allow distant relatives in as well? The limits to legal immigration seem realistic to me since with a population of 323 million people, the US is not hurting for additional people of any kind. With jobs being automated out of existence including truck drivers and cashiers, two of the largest job categories, we need fewer people not more.

I'm a Democrat, but they sure are proclaiming their irrelevance with this one. They are sacrificing 1.8 million illegals that would be given a path to citizenship on the altar of legal immigrants that are not even here yet? The stupidity is appalling and astounding and it goes to show how and why their party is becoming increasingly irrelevant. What, they don't want to let Trump have credit for resolving the immigrant crisis? I don't understand.

What Trump didn't include in his proposal is the fact that most illegals come here legally on visas and then overstay their visas. Why didn't he propose cracking down on them?

If the Democrats don't accept Trump's immigration proposal perhaps with some minor tweaking, I'm not voting for them any more. I won't vote Republican either because I can't stand their policies and the damage they are inflicting on the country with Trump's "beautiful coal" and other environmental policies. I won't go on about everything else I hate about the Republican party, but I will become a full blown independent if Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi can't get it together to secure a path to citizenship for the Dreamers. The other stuff in Trump's proposal is a small price to pay.

Off the Top of My Head

There's a Brou Ha Ha a'Brewing

by John Lawrence, January 24, 2018

Since The Repubs and the Dems kicked the can down the road on immigration, there's another government shutdown scheduled for less than three weeks. MItch McConnell is going to bring it to the floor. Big deal. It'll never pass because the Repubs don't want it to pass. So there will be another government shutdown while Chuck Schumer tries to deal with the Dealer-in-Chief who don't wanna maka da deal. If he done wanna maka da deal, Chuck Schumer will be running around in circles trying to make an irrational guy be rational.

Trump wants to send the Dreamers home so they can dream in their native lands. He loves the Dreamers and he will love them even more when they are safely home in Mexico on the other side of the Great Wall. After the next government shutdown the twitter sphere will be all lit up with twitters about how the Dems are making our poor military fighting men and women suffer by not paying them while forcing them into battle. Their wives and Mums will not even get their $100, 000. death bonus after they're shot down by the Taliban.

Will the Dems go to the mat for the Dreamers while the Repub propaganda machine grinds out the alternate facts about how the Dems are hurting our fighting men and women? And the Statue of Liberty will be closed. That great symbol of the free and the brave will only be able to be seen from afar. You will have to blow kisses at it instead of stepping right up and hugging it. Park rangers will be furloughed. It'll be terrible. All the while the Dems championing of the Dreamers will be pitted against the Repubs standing tall for our military.

When it's over, the Dreamers will be left twisting in the wind which has always been Trump's intention no matter how much he loves them. It has always been the Repubs' intention as well. Hidden up Mitch McConnell's sleeve is the so-called nuclear option by which is meant he will change the rules of the Senate to eliminate the filibuster for just this one vote. Of course, the Dems will not be able to do that when they have a majority. McConnell did it once to get Gorsuch onto the Supreme Court. He'll do it again with impunity guaranteeing a vote that opens the government without resolving the Dreamer crisis. After that the deportations of the Dreamers will begin.

Trump's base will be happy.

'Even Worse Negotiator Than Trump': Progressives Slam Schumer for Caving to GOP on #TrumpShutdown

Published on Monday, January 22, 2018 by Common Dreams

"Dems failed to fight and use their leverage to protect immigrant youth."

89 Comments

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced on Monday that the necessary number of Democrats would vote to pass a three-week spending bill to end the shutdown without a deal on protections for undocumented young people. (Photo: C-SPAN/screenshot)

Critics of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) slammed him for caving to Republicans after he announced Monday that the necessary number of Democrats would support a three-week spending bill to end the #TrumpShutdown without first reaching an agreement to protect undocumented youth known as Dreamers.

"It's official: Chuck Schumer is the worst negotiator in Washington—even worse than Trump. Any plan to protect Dreamers that relies on the word of serial liars like Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, or Donald Trump is doomed to fail."
—Murshed Zaheed, CREDO

Schumer's announcement alarmed immigrant rights advocates and recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA)—or Dreamers—who have urged Democrats to "stand strong" and resist a spending measure that doesn't include a permanent DACA fix.

"It's official: Chuck Schumer is the worst negotiator in Washington—even worse than Trump," CREDO political director Murshed Zaheed said. "Any plan to protect Dreamers that relies on the word of serial liars like Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, or Donald Trump is doomed to fail."

"The fact is, Republicans do not want to protect Dreamers, and they won't do it unless Democrats force their hand by insisting that a clean DREAM Act is attached to a must-pass spending bill," Zaheed continued, adding, "in getting outmaneuvered by Sen. McConnell today, Chuck Schumer has failed dreamers and let the entire Democratic Party down."

"A promise from known liars Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, or Donald Trump isn't worth the paper it's printed on, yet despite that fact, most Senate Democrats, including Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, voted to allow Donald Trump to continue to subject an ever growing number of Dreamers to lives threatened by deportation from the only home they've ever known," noted Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America.

"Today's cave by some Senate Democrats was not only a stunning display of moral and political cowardice, it was a strategically incoherent move that demonstrates precisely why so many believe the Democratic Party doesn't stand for anything."
—Charles Chamberlain, Democracy for America

"That's not what moral courage or leadership in the face of Trump's hate looks like, and it sure as hell isn't a display of competent negotiating skills," Chamberlain added. "Today's cave by some Senate Democrats was not only a stunning display of moral and political cowardice, it was a strategically incoherent move that demonstrates precisely why so many believe the Democratic Party doesn't stand for anything."

"Trump and Republicans in Congress stood with their anti-immigrant nativist base, and too many Democrats backed down, abandoned Dreamers, and failed to fight for their values," said MoveOn.org executive director Ilya Sheyman, who called the stopgap measure a "bad, outrageous deal."

"The fight is far from over," Sheyman added, "with days until DACA expires for all recipients and with the Senate now likely to consider the DREAM Act that the vast majority of Americans support, the grassroots progressive movement is committed to mobilizing alongside Dreamers until we win."

Immigrant advocates weighed in on Twitter, denouncing Schumer for "turning his back on Dreamers" and Democrats for failing to "use their leverage to protect immigrant youth."

Who says @SpeakerRyan will even bring it up for a vote? Shame on @SenateDems for caving. 122 Dreamers lose protections each day. @SenSchumer is turning his back on Dreamers. We didn’t march this weekend to support this spineless leadership. #DreamKiller https://t.co/eBz1BC2k81

— Indivisible Midlands (@IndivisibleSC_2) January 22, 2018

Congress votes on a 3 week CR w/out #DreamAct. Dems failed to fight & use their leverage to protect immigrant youth. A false promise to vote on immigration from Rs is not a strategy to win. We won't be fooled. This vote means deportation. Won't stop fighting! #DreamActNow

— Cristina Jimenez (@CrisAlexJimenez) January 22, 2018

Shame on Chuck Schumer.

The deal he just made with Republicans hinges on Mitch McConnell's honesty and integrity.

What a foolish thing they've done.

— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) January 22, 2018

Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)—who were among the 18 lawmakers who voted against the measure—immediately stated their opposition to Schumer's announcement.

I will keep working with my colleagues to find a long-term solution that supports members of our military, funds CHIP and community health centers, provides resources for those recovering from disasters & guarantees a future for young immigrants who are as American as all of us.

— Kamala Harris (@SenKamalaHarris) January 22, 2018

It’s been over 100 days since protection for 800k Dreamers ended, since community health centers were funded, since hurricanes ravaged TX, FL & PR. The Republicans refused to fix any of these issues– and they still haven't fixed them. We don't need new promises. We need new laws.

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) January 22, 2018

Addressing the Senate floor ahead of the vote, Schumer said, "after several discussions, offers, counteroffers, the Republican leader and I have come to an arrangement" to reopen the government and to "continue negotiating" on immigration. Schumer added that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has agreed that if an immigration deal can't be reached before the stopgap spending measure expires on Feb. 8, "the Senate will immediately proceed to consideration of legislation dealing with DACA." 

Chuck Schumer says that he hasn't spoken to Trump since Friday and that the White House refused to engage in negotiations over the weekend: "The great deal-making president sat on the sidelines." (via CBS) pic.twitter.com/IpLWreLJXv

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) January 22, 2018

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Off the Top of My Head

Trump's Art of the Backstabbing Deal

by John Lawrence, January 23, 2018

The media complained, "Where was the deal maker in all the brou ha ha leading up to the government shutdown." They just don't understand. Trump's art of dealing means getting things his way and his way is telling the Dreamers "My Way and for you the Highway." Despite what he says, which means nothing, he wants the Dreamers deported. So he got the can kicked down the road for another three weeks. One more kick of the can and Bingo: off go the Dreamers to dream in their parents' native lands.

Trump will stab them and Chuck Schumer in the back in a New York minute. His base will cheer and Trump will gloat. This is the kind of deal that Trump makes - not one that benefits Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi. Trump's base wants the Dreamers deported. Why? Because they were one of Obama's pet projects. And we know that anything Obama did was illegal and morally reprehensible. The Dreamers must go just to show how much we are cracking down on illegal immigration.

What does it say in the Bible? That the sins of the father must be visited upon the children for two or more generations. Trump is just carrying out Biblical encomiums when he insists that the sins of the mother be visited on the children. The children must suffer because the mothers brought them here illegally. What part of illegal do they not understand?

If the Democrats have any backbone whatsoever, they will let the government shut down in three weeks until they finally get their own way and the Dreamers can relax. Their whole credibility as a viable political party depends on that. Congress will dither for three weeks until the showdown. The Democrats must hang tough. Trump will say one thing one day, the opposite the next. In the final analysis, Mitch McConnell will pull the nuclear option so as to emasculate the Democratic filibuster, and the Democrats will go along with it because they are nicer people.

Off the Top of My Head

The Solution is Simple and Obvious

by John Lawrence, January 22, 2018

Everybody knows that Trump's ending the DACA program and saying Congress would have to deal with immigration was a ploy because Congress wouldn't have dealt with it, and the Federal government would start deporting Dreamers the day the program ended in March. Trump and his base would be satisfied and Trump could conveniently put the blame on Congress if not just the Democrats in Congress. That's why it's so important that the Democrats stick to their guns till they get a solid deal legalizing the Dreamers. Anything else and Trump and the Republicans will go back on their word and screw the Democrats and the Dreamers.

But here's the simple solution employing the KISS principle, Keep It Simple Stupid: The Dreamers are given green cards and Trump gets some money for his wall. That's all there is to it. Republicans are still trying to figure out a way to screw the Democrats over this. There is no need to make the deal more complicated. When they do, they run into all kinds of problems thinking one side is giving up more than the other.

A more comprehensive approach would deal with the lottery (end it) and chain immigration or family reconciliation. For the Dreamers they could make it illegal to bring more family members in. My approach would legalize the fathers and mothers of the Dreamers, but they wouldn't be able to bring in aunts, uncles and cousins on the grounds of family reconciliation. They could visit those folks in Mexico or wherever. The Dems could give the Repubs those two things without any sweat because they are both the right things to do. So there you have it: problem solved. The government can reopen.

Next, if they really wanted to get more comprehensive, they should end the right of mothers flying in to give birth in the US with their offspring becoming automatic American citizens. Then they go back to their home country, and their kid or kids can come back to the US whenever they feel like it and have all the rights of citizenship. This is ludicrous and looney tunes and no other country does it.

There are still remaining issues like what to do with other illegal immigrants or the children thereof who haven't come out of the closet like the Dreamers did, but who have been in the US for many years. There some line should probably be drawn depending on the length of time in the US. That could be done on a case by case basis.

Off the Top of My Head

Immigration 2

by John Lawrence, January 18, 2018

Of course the Dreamers should be given a path to citizenship as well as all illegals that have been here more than say 5 years. However, the crackdown on illegal immigration should be strengthened, but not necessarily by building a wall. The most prolific source of illegal immigration is overstaying of visas. This system needs to be modified so this just does not happen. As far as the Dreamers, their parents who brought them here should also be allowed to stay if they've been here 5 years or more.

Lottery based immigration should be ended. We don't want random people coming here from random countries. Family reconciliation is OK up to a point. I would say Grandparents should come, but no aunts, uncles or cousins. I don't know why this issue should be so prominent. It could be dealt with in a rational manner.

Throughout history there has been a rationale for immigration that made sense. In the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries there were wide open spaces in the US that needed to be settled. There was also a need for labor. In the 20th century there was just a need for labor. In the 21st century there is no longer a need for labor so immigration needs have changed.

It makes sense to let people in that have cooperated with the US and because of that have been targeted by militant groups in their countries. Of course, if the US military hadn't been there in the first place fighting useless wars, there would be no call for this type of immigration. The US and Europe should help resettle refugees in their own countries. This means a massive PEACE effort of rebuilding infrastructure, homes and businesses. The US should pay reparations for all civilians killed and homes and businesses destroyed. The US military should be put to use rebuilding rather than destroying.

Immigration should be kept to a minimum and be merit based instead of guilt based which it has been up to now. With that sentiment I agree with Trump. There is no need for immigrant labor when we have a large homeless population and formerly incarcerated population that can't get jobs. Automation is depopulating the work force on a daily basis. First see to it that all Americans that are here already have a job and a roof over their heads before letting more people into the country.

Off the Top of My Head

Immigration

by John Lawrence, January 17, 2018

Immigration is a touchy subject. How do you decide who gets in, from what countries, with what skills? First of all the US has seemed to accept immigrants from countries we've had wars with. Is that out of guilt or out of the fact that these people were on our side in the Vietnam war for example? The solution is simple: stop fighting wars in every corner of the world and then accepting immigrants from whatever war torn country the US military has torn apart. Refugees from these countries should be resettled in their own countries with financial aid from the developed world to help them to do so. In other words a massive Peace Corps development involving rebuilding bombed out towns and cities and infrastructure development. Europe has finally come to the conclusion that it can't accept an unending flood of refugees and is doing this.

Trump wants to accept refugees on a merit basis. In other words people with skills that will help them make a contribution to society. That makes sense although the foreigners coming in on H1B visas are taking jobs away from Americans because they will work longer, harder and cheaper. So merit based solutions need to be monitored and limited.

The US is a relatively mature society in the sense that it is "built out." There are not a lot of open  places that need development. All the good land has more or less been taken. Businesses have been established. There is no need for labor to build stuff as there was much of US history. Also immigrants should be self-sufficient. They shouldn't be a burden on society. They need to be able to take care of themselves or have sponsors that help to get them adjusted and started. That's the way it used to be. The sponsor needed extra help on the farm, for example, and would sponsor an immigrant family to come help him.

Chain immigration in which every immigrant then brings everyone over from his town or village other than his immediate family shouldn't happen. We shouldn't take immigrants from countries where terrorism is active even though the US has basically created terrorism by destroying their countries. Nevertheless, we shouldn't be taking in potential terrorists because we feel guilty about having destroyed those countries. Instead, we should do a massive rebuilding effort in those countries. We destroyed them. We should rebuild them.

All in all I think that merit based, not guilt based, immigration is the way to go, but not people who will work cheaper and take jobs away from American citizens. Despite what it says on the Statue of Liberty, we don't need any more "huddled masses" at this point in history. However, we should be helping people to get out of poverty around the world especially in countries where we've warred.

Off the Top of My Head

The Diversity Immigrant Visa Program

by John Lawrence

Was there ever a stupider program than the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program which let the New York City truck bomber, Sayfullo Saipov, a 29-year-old immigrant from Uzbekistan, into the country? But wait, there's something even stupider:

The U.S. Embassy announces the opening of the 2019 Diversity Visa Lottery Program (DV-2019). Often called the “Green Card Lottery,” DV-2019 is the only official lottery program for immigrant visas to the United States. Registration began at noon Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, and ends at noon EDT on Tuesday, November 7, 2017. There is no fee to apply.

He carried out his deed on October 31 which means it was during the period that some other terrorist could apply for their green card. Why wasn't this program immediately discontinued and canceled? It just goes to show that the Trump administration and politicians in general are all a bunch of hot air. It's all bullshit, especially with Tweety Trump. The only intelligent discussion of the issues is on RT, a media outlet politicians want to get rid of, probably because they do have intelligent discussions which is anathema to the bullshit politicians who didn't even know there were American soldiers in Niger, nor did they know about the DIVP.

 The dimwit Democrats better come up with a new approach and a new line about immigration because that is one area where Trump had a greater appeal to the American people. However, Europeans are in a far greater bind as everyone from the Middle East and from Africa is literally dying to get in. They all want a better life.

Here's an idea: Take a few hundred billion away from the combined military budgets of the US and Europe and create a NATO Peace Corps whose mission is to improve the lives of poor people in Africa and the Middle East so they can stay in their homeland and have a good life there. Instead we've bombed the hell out of the Middle East and corporations have exploited the hell out of Africa. The result is that nobody wants to stay there. The American approach is to let corporations exploit these countries in the hopes that the few pittance level jobs that are created for the locals will elevate their standard of living. It hasn't worked. War and corporate exploitation are not the answers.

I(f we hadn't destroyed their cities, they wouldn't be trying to get into Europe and the US. Now Europe is suffering the brunt of the refugee problem. The US has escaped it for the most part, and most Americans want to keep it that way. The Democrats shouldn't just be handing over this issue to the Republicans. Trump exploited it to his advantage, The Democrats better think again.

Why We Must All Fight for the Dream Act.

by Robert Reich

• Thursday, October 19, 2017

  By repealing DACA – Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals – Trump has endangered both these young immigrants and the economic security of America.

  In 2012, the Obama  administration created DACA as a temporary way to address the needs of young people who came to America as infants or toddlers, and know no other country.  

  To apply and qualify for DACA, these young people had to risk entering the system by giving their identifying information. Once approved, they were granted two years of “deferred action” on deportation, with the promise that they could reapply every two years indefinitely.

  This allowed “dreamers” to go to college, get a job, and pay taxes without fear of deportation. DACA was never perfect, but for 800,000 immigrant youth it meant freedom from fear and an opportunity to fully contribute to the country they were raised in. 

  But now these young people are threatened with deportation. 

  For no reason. These young people are not taking jobs away from native-born Americans.  Even the conservative Cato Institute has said that the economic cost of cancelling DACA would be $200 billion over ten years.  And that’s just direct costs. The Center for American Progress estimates that if we lost these young workers the U.S. gross domestic product would shrink by $433 billion over the next decade.

  The moral case is even more compelling than the economic one.

  These kids grew up in America. To enter the DACA program they already had to step forward and show that they were contributing  to their communities and then prove it again every two years to stay in the program. It is immoral to now put them in the crosshairs of deportation.

  This is just the latest effort by Trump to play to his base and divide us, but we must not allow that. Americans of all races and creeds must push congress to pass the Dream Act, and allow these young people to become American citizens – without the Act being a bargaining chip for more border security or anything else. 

  These DACA young people are our neighbors, our colleagues, and our classmates. They represent the the best of the dream that my parents and most of our ancestors had when they came to America:  To make a better life for themselves, and for their kids.  Trump’s attempt to divide us and fuel our differences along racial and ethnic lines is an attack on the America I believe in, and we must not let it stand.  

  That’s why the DACA fight is my fight, and why I stand with the dreamers – and I hope you will too.

  

 

WHY WE NEED SANCTUARY STATES

 by Robert Reich

 

 

Saturday, October 7, 2017

California lawmakers have just passed “sanctuary state” legislation – the first state since Oregon, which 30 years ago passed a law preventing state agencies from targeting undocumented immigrants solely because of their illegal status. 

Other states should follow California’s and Oregon’s lead. 

Since January, when Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered immigration authorities to target “public safety” threats, federal arrests of undocumented immigrants have increased by over 37 percent. California is home to an estimated 2.3 million unauthorized immigrants. 

California’s law limits the authority of state and local law enforcers to communicate with federal immigration authorities, and prevents officers from questioning or holding people depending on their immigration status or immigration violations. But it still allows federal immigration authorities to enter county jails to question immigrants, and allow police and sheriffs to share information on people who have been convicted of serious crimes.

This is a fair balance. Sanctuary protections like these make sense because:

1. Under them, undocumented immigrants are more likely to come forth with information about crime when doing so won’t put them at risk of deportation. This improves public safety and builds trusts with law enforcement. 

2. By contrast, turning state and local police into immigration agents invites more crime because it diverts limited time and resources to rounding up undocumented immigrants.

3. Undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than native-born citizens, so it makes even less sense for local and state police to spend their precious time and resources rounding them up.

4. A dragnet aimed at finding and deporting all of America’s 11 million unauthorized immigrants is cruel, costly, and contemptible. It turns this country into more of a police state, breaks up families, and hurts the economy. 

We must resist Jeff Sessions and his dragnet. Help make your state a sanctuary. 

California to be ‘Sanctuary State’

From the San Diego Union-Tribune, October 6, 2017

Governor signs bill to limit local enforcement of immigration laws

By Jazmine Ulloa

SACRAMENTO

From truthfeed.com

Under threat of possible retaliation by the Trump administration, Gov. Jerry Brown signed landmark “sanctuary state” legislation Thursday, vastly limiting who state and local law enforcement agencies can hold, question and transfer at the request of federal immigration authorities. Senate Bill 54 , which takes effect in January, has been criticized as “unconscionable” by Attorney General Jeff Sessions , becoming the focus of a national debate over how far states and cities can go to prevent their officers from enforcing federal immigration laws.

Supporters have hailed it as part of a broader effort by majority Democrats in the Legislature to shield the state’s 2.3 million undocumented immigrants. Brown took the unusual step of writing a signing message in support of SB 54. He called the legislation a balanced measure that would allow police and sheriff’s agencies to continue targeting dangerous criminals, while protecting hardworking families without legal residency in the country.
“In enshrining these new protections, it is important to note what the bill does not do,” Brown wrote. “This bill does not prevent or prohibit Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Department of Homeland Security from doing their own work in any way.”

Legal experts have said federal officials may try to block the law in court to keep it from being implemented. Some doubt such challenges would be successful, pointing to the 10th Amendment and rulings in which courts have found the federal government can’t compel local authorities to enforce federal laws. On Thursday, Department of Justice spokesman Devin O’Malley declined to comment on the agency’s next move. Asked whether the administration would attempt to block the state law, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that federal officials “are spending every day we can trying to find the best way forward.

“The president will be laying out his responsible immigration plan over the next week,” she said. “And I hope that California will push back on their governor’s, I think, irresponsible decision moving forward.” Brown’s decision comes as local and state governments are locked in legal battles with Sessions over his move to slash federal grant funding from “sanctuary jurisdictions,” where city and county agencies are limited when working with federal immigration officials. A Chicago federal judge largely blocked Sessions’ effort just hours before SB 54 cleared the Legislature on Sept. 16.

Legislature declares California will be a 'sanctuary state'

From the LA Times:

California Legislature

SEPT. 16, 2017, 1:50 A.M.

 

Jazmine Ulloa

 

After long negotiations, Gov. Jerry Brown and state Senate leader Kevin de León came to a

compromise on the "sanctuary state" bill. (Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

California lawmakers on Saturday passed a Senate bill that would turn the state into a sanctuary for immigrants without legal residency in the country, part of a broader push by Democrats to counter expanded deportation orders under the Trump administration.

After passionate debate on both House chamber floors, staunch opposition from Republican sheriffs and threats from Trump administration officials against so-called sanctuary cities, SB 54 by Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) was approved with a final 27-11 vote. But the bill sent to Gov. Jerry Brown was drastically scaled back from the version first introduced, changes that were negotiated between Brown and De León in the final weeks of the legislative session.

On the Senate floor minutes before 2 a.m. Saturday, De León said the changes did not erode the mission of the bill, which was to protect hardworking families, and reflected a compromise between law enforcement officials and advocates.

"This is a measure that reflects the values of who we are as a great state," he said.

SB 54 would limit state and local law enforcement agencies from communication with federal immigration authorities, and prevent all state and local police forces from questioning and holding people on immigration violations.

But amendments added this week would permit officers to continue sharing information and transferring people for immigration authorities if they have convictions for one or more of roughly 800 crimes.

In their respective chambers Friday, at least 20 members of the Assembly and six members of the Senate took the floor for debate on the bill.

Opponents pointed to the concerns from sheriff’s organizations, saying it tied officers’ hands, allowing serial thieves, chronic drug abusers and gang members to slip through the cracks. Supporters countered that the Trump administration was trying to paint all immigrants illegally in the country as criminals.

They pointed to provisions in the bill that would make hospitals, schools and courthouses safe zones for immigrants from federal immigration authorities at a time of fear for some communities. Some children without legal status were not going to school, they said, while police statistics showed a drop in reports of sexual assault and domestic violence as immigrant victims refused to come forward.

READ MORE

The Dreamers' Nightmare

Trump Passes Off Responsibility for Dreamers to the Black Hole of Congress

by John Lawrence

Trump knows good and well that Congress will do nothing to protect the Dreamers. They have six months to get out or they will be the low hanging fruit for deportation, and Trump will not have to take the blame. He can blame it on Congress while laughing up his sleeve because his intention in the first place was to get them deported. He knows that. His base knows that, and he can dog whistle them at his campaign style rallies. Wink. Wink.

The smart ones never came forward with all their information. The government, under the Obama administration, promised them, if they did, they would be protected. Now government, under the Trump administration, is breaking its promise. Dreamers, you've been duped! You never should have trusted the government in the first place. Now it's too late.

Trump says, "He loves the Dreamers." Sure he does. He'll love to get them deported, and then he'll love them when they are on the other side of the border. If he loved them so much, he could have left Obama's executive order in place until Congress came up with a comprehensive immigration reform which he knows they cannot do. They've tried and failed to do this for years. They've been deadlocked over practically every piece of legislation for years. Congress is incapable of doing anything, much less of coming up with a comprehensive immigration plan.

But we're just at the beginning of Trump's massive make-over of the US in order to Make America Great Again. If we can get upset over every outrage as it presents itself, we will be continually in a state of upset. Better to concentrate on the future and coalesce around a set of principles that we would like to see implemented so that we have a coherent alternative to Republicanism and Trumpism that appeals to the largest majority of Americans. The Left needs to appeal to the majority on economic grounds and not just concentrate on identity politics.

The Very Bad Economics of Killing DACA

by Paul Krugman, New York Times, September 5, 2017

Photo

Protesters marching in support of DACA on Tuesday, in Washington.Credit Tom Brenner/The New York Times

Trump’s decision to kill DACA — never mind the attempt to obscure things with that meaningless delay — is, first and foremost, a moral obscenity: throwing out 800,000 young people who are Americans in every way that matters, who have done nothing wrong, basically for racial reasons. But it’s also worth noting that Jeff Sessions just tried to sell it with junk economics, claiming that the Dreamers are taking American jobs. No, they aren’t, even if we leave aside the question of who’s an American. DACA is very much a boon to the rest of the U.S. population, and killing it will make everyone worse off.

To see why, first note that whatever you think about the economics of less-educated immigrants — most of the evidence suggests that they don’t depress wages, but that’s another discussion — none of it applies to DREAMers. Their educational and behavioral profile, as Cato notes, doesn’t resemble the average immigrant, let alone the average undocumented immigrant; they look like H-1B visa holders, that is, skilled immigrants we have specifically allowed in because they help the economy.

Beyond that, DREAMers are young — which means that they help the economy in not one but two big ways, because they mitigate the economic problems caused by an aging population.

One of those problems is fiscal: as the population ages, there are fewer working-age members contributing taxes to pay for Social Security and Medicare. A cohort of relatively high-wage, highly motivated people mostly in their 20s, likely to pay lots of taxes for decades, is exactly what the doctor ordered to make that issue less severe.

Meanwhile, I’m one of those who worries about secular stagnation — persistently weak spending, making episodes in which monetary policy can’t achieve full employment even with zero interest rates much more likely. Several factors contribute to this risk, but probably the most important is demography: a sharp slowdown in the growth of the working-age population, which means less incentive to invest in structures, factories, and more. (The demographic issue is why Japan, with low fertility and great hostility to immigration, entered a zero-rate regime a decade before the rest of us.)

And what would make secular stagnation more of a problem? Hey, let’s expel hundreds of thousands of young people from the current and future work force.

So this is a double blow to the U.S. economy; it will make everyone worse off. There is no upside whatever to this cruelty, unless you just want to have fewer people with brown skin and Hispanic surnames around. Which is, of course, what this is really all about.

Two Cheers for President Obama. Bronx Cheers for Congressional Republicans

by John Lawrence from the San Diego Free Press

Finally, President Obama has found the balls to stand up to Congress. He signed an historic agreement regarding climate change with the Chinese. He has taken executive action on immigration that will put 5 million people's minds at ease, and he would have but didn't need to veto the Keystone pipeline. He has also taken a stand in favor of internet neutrality. All of this despite howls of protest from Republicans in Congress. He's realized the futility of "cooperating" with Congress because they have done nothing but try to intimidate, bully, humiliate and badger him from Day 1 of his administration. He finally realizes that hoping to cooperate with them to "get something done" is a fool's errand and a wild goose chase.

Instead Obama is proceeding down the road available to him by taking executive action to further his agenda without deigning to ask Congress for their approval. Hooray for him! They have done nothing but disapprove of him since he has been in office and after awhile it becomes obvious that you don't ask for approval from someone or someones who disapprove of you no matter what you do. He has extended his hand to them numerous times only to have it slapped down. And this attitude of disparagemnt towards Obama has been amplified by the hatemonger talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and others. As far as impeachment goes, President Obama is effectively saying, "Bring it on." Let the bloviators and naysayers and bottom feeders scrape together their articles of impeachment. Obama is not letting these guys stand in his way from accomplishing something the last two years of his administration.

Let's consider for a minute his good work on climate change. He has put in place the first-ever carbon pollution standards for power plants in an effort to reduce the nation's biggest source of pollution blamed for global warming - carbon emission from power plants. Almost a third of America's carbon emissions come from electricity generation. A proposed new Environmental Protection Agency rule would reduce such emissions 30% by 2030, compared to the levels in 2005.

In the historic climate change agreement with China, the U.S. pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 26 - 28% by 2025, compared with 2005 levels. In turn, China agreed to peak its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 - and sooner if possible - and to get 20% of its energy from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030.

Bill McKibben of 350.org has said there are ten great things about the agreement with the Chinese. Here are a few of them. 1) It is historic; for the first time a developing nation has agreed to eventually limit its emissions. 2) Renewable energy is ready to go. It just needs a push from government to surpass fossil fuels in price and efficiency. The Chinese have revolutionized the production of solar energy, driving down the cost of panels by 90% or more in the last decade. They'll be using clean sources to get 20% of their energy by 2030.

3) Finally, world leaders are taking climate change seriously. When the two largest world economies sign an agreement, other nations will perk up and hopefully fall in line behind them. 4) Recent advances in renewables have made it less plausible to build more pipelines like Keystone or approve new fracking ventures. 4) The goals set by the US/China agreement are easy ones to meet. The Germans will be getting 60% of their energy from clean sources by the mid-2020s  which represents considerably more progress than the 20% expected of the Chinese. 5) Movements work and public pressure on the climate change agendas has had great results so far, but there is much more that needs to be done.

However, this agreement is merely a first step. The International Energy Agency warned in 2012 that "almost four-fifths of the CO2 emissions allowable by 2035 [in order to keep global temperature rise below 2°C] are already locked-in by existing power plants, factories, buildings, etc. If action to reduce CO2 emissions is not taken before 2017, all the allowable CO2 emissions would be locked-in by energy infrastructure existing at that time."

As for the Keystone pipeline, it would do nothing for American citizens. Its purpose is to transport Canadian tar sands oil, the dirtiest kind of oil, across the whole continental United States to ports in Texas where it would be shipped off to other countries. The number of jobs it would provide would be minimal and temporary. The Rosebud Sioux have said that approval of the pipeline, which would traverse their tribal lands, would be considered an act of war, and they would fight it tooth and nail. President Cyril Scott of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe said, “Did I declare war on the Keystone XL pipeline? Hell yeah, I did. I pledge my life to stop these people from harming our children and grandchildren and way of life. They will not cross our treaty lands. We have so much to lose here.”

Naomi Klein in her new book, This Changes Everything, has placed her hope for fighting climate change in just such efforts which are happening around the world which she calls "Blockadia."

Blockadia also stretches into multiple hot spots in Canada ... For instance, in 2013 ... a remarkable standoff was playing out in the province of New Brunswick , on land claimed by the Elsipogtog First Nation, a Mi'kmaq commuinity whose roots in what is now eastern Canada go back some ten thousand years. The people of Elsipogtog were leading a blockade against SWN Resources, the Canadian subsidiary of a Texas-based company, as it tried to conduct seismic testing ahead of a possible fracking operation. The land in question has not been handed over by war or treaty and Canada's highest court has upheld the Mi'kmaq's right to continue to access the natural resources of those lands and waters - rights the protesters say would be rendered meaningless if the territory becomes poisoned by fracking toxins.

... for months demonstrators camped near the seismic testing area, blocking roads and equipment as hand drums pounded out traditional songs. On several occasions trucks were prevented from working, and at one point a Mi'kacq woman strapped herself to a pile of seismic testing gear to prevent it from being moved.

When the Royal Canadian Mounted Police moved in and attacked the demonstrators, the rural landscape was turned into a war zone. Elders and children were attacked. Many were arrested including the Chief of the Elsipogtog Nation. Many cop cars were burned by the demonstrators. The Rosebud Sioux promise the same type of response if the Keystone pipeline is ever approved.

As for immigration, Obama is stepping out on this front as well. In his speech November 20, 2014 he outlined the steps he was taking so that five million parents of American citizen children could legally stay in the US. That's a lot of people. Congressional Republicans including tortoise visaged Mitch McGoonell and ale faced John Boner were up in arms. They vowed retaliation including cutting off funding to the Department of Homeland Security, shutting down the government, blocking the confirmation of the president’s nominees and initiating impeachment proceedings against the president.

They are so upset that Obama won't cooperate with them after proving for six years that they can not be cooperated with. He of the immobile ventriloquist dummy's countenance said with barely his lips moving, "If President Obama acts in defiance of the people and imposes his will on the country, Congress will act." Good luck with that. After rubbing Obama's nose in it for six years (remember he said it was his job to make sure Obama would fail), I hope Obama rubs his nose in it and accomplishes a lot without any input from the useless and problematic Congress. Whatever they say in their interminable bloviations is just a lot of hot air, sound and fury signifying nothing.

Does 'Comprehensive Immigration Reform' Contain an Option for Deportation?

by John Lawrence

Like most national debates these days, the debate on illegal immigration is superficial. For whatever reason the debate seems to be about profiling brown people vs protecting the border. Let's expand the debate to include the full panoply of issues. First, it's a no brainer that the US needs strong border, port and vital industry protection including the power grid, the chemical industry, the communications and internet networks. It's not just a matter of illegal workers coming over the border; that could be fixed with a legal bracero program; it's a matter of illegal drug shipments and other illegal materiel such as guns and weapons and cash. Some of these people and things are going north across the border; some are going south. It's important to put an end to all illegal cross border transgressions, not just illegal immigrants. This is where true national security lies - not in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the border is porous, terrorists can gain entry or they can come on student visas and then overstay their visa.

So it is a multi-faceted problem in which 'profiling brown people' is really a minor part. Criminal activity on the part of illegal border crossers is a major concern. The debate seems to be between those who want stronger border protection first and then dealing with the illegal immigrant population second and those who want "comprehensive immigration reform" which translates to amnesty for all illegal immigrants present in the US today first and whatever regarding the border second. I say the first problem is protecting the border so as to stanch the flow of new illegal immigrants because they continue to come across the border on a daily basis. What to do with the illegal immigrants already in the US is a secondary problem.

The major problem is that, while the military budget is approximately $1 trillion for FY 2011, the Homeland Security budget is a paltry $54.7 billion. Clearly, the resources for protecting the borders and vital installations is a fraction of the Pentagon budget. This indicates that US priorities are all wrong. While money and resources are lavished and to a large extent wasted on the military, real defense of the US is neglected. Why? Because vested interests in the military-industrial complex want to keep it that way. There is no doubt that, if a couple hundred billion was transferred from the Pentagon to Homeland Security, not one single illegal immigrant would be capable of infiltrating the border. While drug lords in Mexico have sophisticated submarines, the Coast Guard has no anti-submarine capability while the US Navy has all sorts of submarine and anti-submarine capabilities. This shows the trifling resources that are allocated to Homeland Security. My main point is that border, port and vital industry protection and strengthening are possible if the resources are allocated to them and that Homeland Security represents real defense needs while wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere represent secondary or tertiary defense needs at most. Our priorities are backwards. While resources allocated to the Pentagon allow for the invention of every military technological trinket money can possibly buy, real defense goes begging. Real border security demands a sophisticated satellite and drone surveillance system integrated with rapid response teams on the ground, an electronic fence if you will.

Comprehensive immigration reform should definitely include deportation as one option. That is not to say that every illegal immigrant should be deported, but unless some are as a deterrent, they will not be disincentivized from coming across the border illegally especially if zero illegal cross border infractions doesn't become a major goal. What needs to happen is that identified illegal immigrants residing in the US should be treated on a case by case basis. Obviously, the criminals among them should be summarily deported. Some of those with deep roots in their communities who have been in the US a long time and have families and businesses should probably be accommodated according to what advocates for comprehensive immigration reform mainly want - a pathway to citizenship. Some illegal immigrants who have raised families in the US may have more family members who are legal American citizens than those who aren't. Some sort of court of appeal needs to be set up.

Those for whom it's decided that they should be deported should also be accommodated to the extent that deportation need not be immediate. In some cases time may be necessary in order to wind down or sell businesses or time may be needed to accomodate those who are close to graduation so they can graduate. Deportation, another name for which is repatriation, need not be a completely negative experience. People and families can be relocated (in many cases just a few miles away) with Federal and Mexican national assistance so that their transition need be no more jarring than a move from one town to another within the US to take another job. Which illegal immigrants should be "legalized" in some sense would be left to a court of appeal. All those who are legalized need not be given a "path to citizenship." There are other forms of legal residency besides citizenship. And their legal residency could be time limited.

The whole debate about racial profiling is simply ridiculous. A cop making a traffic stop always asks for ID. He just doesn't ask for ID if he suspects that you're not an American citizen. The cop then runs a computer check from his vehicle to see if you have a prison record. He can and should routinely check social security numbers or any other database that would indicate legal or illegal citizenship status such as E-verify. E-Verify is an Internet-based system that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States. E-Verify is fast, free and easy to use – and it’s the best way employers can ensure a legal workforce according to the E-verify website. So cops have access to the internet from their patrol vehicles so why can't they tap into the E-verify database to determine if someone they stop for a traffic violation is legal or not? The burden of proof should be on the cop not on the person stopped to verify citizenship. This removes the onerous aspects of people having to present their papers or cops having to ask, "Papers, please."

Checking legal citizenship or green card status should be done just as a matter of course and not just for people with brown skins. There are definitely a number of white skinned people who are in the US illegally and some for nefarious purposes. A national ID card or secure social security card, while desirable, isn't really even necessary as long as some form of ID, and I guess it would be a DRIVER'S LICENSE for those detained in a traffic stop, is presented. The cop has access to multiple databases from his internet connected vehicle and can and should check every one out, not just brown people. Of course, a secure ID card would also be desirable as a first step. Almost everyone sooner or later is stopped by a cop while driving for a traffic violation having nothing to do with racial profiling. If every one is checked at that time for all previous violations criminal or otherwise including citizenship violations, I think this is entirely appropriate.

So the debate need not be all or nothing. Like all sticky wickets and thorny thickets this problem is not black and white. There is a lot of gray. The border needs to be protected big time. Residents of the US need to be legal, or legalized in some sense or deported. Crossing the border illegally needs to be disincentivized.

US to Deploy Drones to Shore Up Border with Mexico

Published on Thursday, June 24, 2010 by Agence France-Presse

by Jordi Zamora

WASHINGTON — The United States plans to deploy two drone aircraft along the Texas-Mexico border as part of a new effort to stem organized crime and illegal immigration, Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano said Wednesday.

Predator drones will be used to patrol the border and in nearby areas in the Gulf of Mexico, once Congress approves the 500 million dollars President Barack Obama has requested, Napolitano said in a Washington speech. (AP)

The two Predator drones will be used to patrol the border and in nearby areas in the Gulf of Mexico, once Congress approves the 500 million dollars President Barack Obama has requested, Napolitano said in a Washington speech.

"These types of flights aren't necessary everywhere," she said in comments to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "But this is the case in the Texas border."

The United States currently has four drones patrolling the border with Mexico in Arizona and one in the northern border with Canada in the state of North Dakota, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Napolitano said the new aircraft are part of a reinforcement of border patrol efforts including one thousand additional agents and 60 investigators.

"Over the past 18 months, this administration has devoted more resources -- including manpower, technology and infrastructure -- to the Southwest border than at any point in America's history," she said.

Texas Governor Rick Perry had requested delivery of the planes, which the US used extensively in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Obama administration is seeking to step up security as it presses for a comprehensive immigration reform measure that likely would allow many of the millions of illegal migrants in the United States to legalize their status.

Many Republican lawmakers say no immigration measure can be considered unless the federal government can ensure security along the southern US border to prevent a spillover of violence from Mexico.

Napolitano also announced a number of new cooperation agreements with law enforcement in non-border states to send personnel to southwest border.

DHS said it is working on a system that will fully link the information systems of all state, local and tribal law enforcement entities operating along the southwest border with those of the federal government.

"Border security is primarily a responsibility of federal government," she said. "We cannot have 50 different state legislations. It will not work."

The remark was aimed at a controversial Arizona law that allows police to question persons suspected of being illegal immigrants.

The agency said it was developing "Project Roadrunner," a license plate reader recognition system aimed at detecting drug trafficking and associated illegal activity along the border.

In a related comment in Congress, Democratic Senator Robert Menendez said the security situation will influence the debate on immigration.

"There are those in the Senate who believe we should basically militarize our borders and until we do, until we meet some standard of militarization, we cannot tackle the issue of comprehensive immigration reform," he said.

© 2010 Agence France-Presse

Put Jobless Young People to Work Doing Jobs Illegals Are Now Doing

by John Lawrence

Robert Reich posted a blog yesterday about putting jobless young people to work cleaning up the mess in the Gulf and sending the bill to BP. Sure and there are a lot of other corporate messes that need to be cleaned up with the bills sent to the respective corporations. In addition to that there are tons of jobs being taken by people that aren't even citizens of the US. These jobs total about the same number as the unemployed in this country. So my solution is to force employers who employ illegals to hire jobless American citizens instead. Government would not have to pay the bill to employ these people, but it would have to facilitate their being employed. In Europe this is know as "workfare." In his book Europe's Promise, Steven Hill tells how workfare, not welfare, is the true nature of European societies. Governments do whatever it takes to get people into jobs paid for by the private sector.

In Sweden nationwide databases of jobs are provided by government at storefront employment agencies. Support systems assist people who are out of work to be sure, but the main goal is to place people in jobs, to get them back to work. Another way European societies create jobs is by public-private partnerships. There is much in the way of infrastructure that needs improving in the US, but the US is hampered in that government doesn't have the money, and private enterprise is not interested in improving infrastructure. This is where private-public partnerships could create not only improved infrastructure but also the jobs required to produce it. Steven Hill writes:

One of the most compelling stories of Europe's strategic use of public-private partnerships is the way it has utilized them for financing massive infrastructure projects, such as for trains and other forms of mass transit, ports, bridges, roads, and even broadband Internet availability. The rigid American way of thinking spurns government involvement in the private sector as well as private investment in public infrastructure, leaving it to the government to pay for and undertake most public infrastructure projects. This creates a major bottleneck when the government is running big deficits, resulting in the delay or outright canceling of crucial infrastructure investment. But European governments, not so hidebound by fundamentalist economic preaching, have played an active role in creating investment vehicles to attract hundreds of billions of dollars from private investors across the globe to finance local and national infrastructure development. They have created financing partnerships with foreign pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, financial institutions, insurance companies and other entities. "Participants in Europe's infrastructure market marvel at how European national and municipal governments, generally considered to be less market friendly and more suspicious of the private sector than American government, could be so far ahead of the United States in using creative partnerships with the private sector and innovative capital market tools to raise vast sums for infrastructure projects," says Heidi Crebo-Rediker, an investment banker.

In other words government can leverage infrastructure projects instead of paying for them directly and, in the process, create jobs. Instead of decaying infrastructure with no way of paying to improve it, government leverages the creation not only of needed improvements to infrastructure but at the same time creates jobs that private enterprise, left to its own devices, would not create. Creative financing is one of the tools that make this possible. In the US the only model used is to spend government money on projects using taxes (or borrowed money) to pay for them. But there are other ways for government to raise money using the capital markets. Leveraging is the key word. The amount in royalties that BP and other oil companies now pay for extracting American resources could also be raised to European levels of around 50%. Right now, although a significant amount of money is raised by the US from royalties on oil and other resources, the rate is relatively paltry compared to European rates.

And for government to facilitate placing unemployed young American workers in jobs now taken by illegals would be a way to solve part of the illegal immigration problem and the unemployment problem at the same time. But it would take government "work" to bring this about. Funds would have to be used to set up an agency to bring this about; it wouldn't just happen by passing some law or decree. The rewards, as far as government is concerned, would be that people would be taken off the unemployment roles and this would save government money. So by putting out some money to facilitate this happening, government would save money in the long run. Other countries such as Canada will not let anyone into the country if they would be taking one job away from a Canadian citizen. They would have to prove that the job they would be doing could not be done by a Canadian. Otherwise, they do not get in.

The US, however, is so lame and lax both in border protection and job protection that it lets non-American citizens take jobs that Americans could be doing. And don't tell me that illegals are doing jobs Americans don't want to do. Americans should be given the choice of doing those jobs or having their unemployment benefits dropped. At the same time those jobs should come with all the benefits and protections that are not given to the illegals who do them such as paying at least minimum wage. These jobs should be dignified to the extent that they are jobs worthy of doing by American citizens.

While in the US job provision is almost entirely left to the private sector, in Europe governments are actively involved in leveraging job provision and protecting job markets. This is not the same as hiring more government workers. Private enterprise supplies and pays for the jobs. Government with its "workfare" philosophy does whatever it can to leverage them. Private enterprise in the US is obsessed with replacing American workers with low cost labor whether it be by hiring illegals or offshoring the jobs to low cost labor countries. The Obama administration should not just wait around for the private sector to provide jobs. The private sector is actively engaged in the process of reducing the number of American jobs and right now government policy encourages them to do so. Outsourcing, offshoring, automating, computerizing - these are all ways US corporations are bound and determined to reduce the amount of money thay pay for their labor input and hence increase profits. Left to their own devices US corporations will not create jobs when they are in the process of destroying jobs. Where this leaves the American worker is unemployed.

FINALLY: Drones to Patrol Border!

Published on Tuesday, May 11, 2010 by the Austin American Statesman (Texas)

Predator Drones to Fly Over Texas-Mexico Border by Fall

by Tim Eaton

After years of political pressure from Texas politicians, U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar said Monday that he expects the federal government to deliver unmanned aircraft to watch over the border with Mexico by this fall.

If approved, the unmanned aircraft in Texas would add to the federal government's existing border effort, which includes a handful of other unmanned aircraft, 20,000 Border Patrol agents, about 650 miles of border fence and 41 mobile surveillance systems, according to Customs and Border Protection. (Ross D. Franklin/2007 AP)

Cuellar, a Democrat from Laredo, said he has had discussions with top officials from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's office of air and marine operations, and they agreed to the timetable, subject to Federal Aviation Administration approval to allow the surveillance planes — often referred to in the political vernacular as "Predator drones" — to fly over Texas.

Laura Brown, an FAA spokeswoman, said the administration is "working as quickly as we can on this."

Cuellar said the FAA told him that regulators' main concern has been with Texas' heavy airplane traffic — both private and commercial.

If approved, the unmanned aircraft in Texas would add to the federal government's existing border effort, which includes a handful of other unmanned aircraft, 20,000 Border Patrol agents, about 650 miles of border fence and 41 mobile surveillance systems, according to Customs and Border Protection.

The plane, which is made by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems and officially called a Predator B, is able to spot illegal border activity and send images in real time to border officials.

At that point, Border Patrol agents could be dispatched, according to Customs and Border Protection.

Cuellar — along with Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison and Gov. Rick Perry — has been trying to bring the unmanned aircraft to Texas for years.

Cornyn and Perry, both Republicans, have been among the most vocal critics of the regulators' pace.

"Washington needs to quit fiddling while the border region of America burns," said Perry, who has been calling for Predators since 2005.

Also last week, Cornyn said that the FAA's pace "borders on foot-dragging."

Cuellar has refrained from using harsh words directed at the FAA.

Instead, he invited FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt and Alan Bersin, the commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, to his office on May 20 to make sure an agreement can be reached.

"My interest in this is to get this done as quickly as possible," he said.

Cuellar, who leads the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism, has asked the FAA to give priority to Texas' request.

Cuellar and Customs and Border Protection officials said a home for a Texas-based Predator already has been identified at Naval Air Station-Corpus Christi.

Kimberly Kasitz, a spokeswoman for General Atomics, said one unmanned aircraft costs $10 million to $12 million.

Discussions in Washington have centered on bringing one Predator to Texas to be deployed along the border with Mexico to fight drug trafficking, human smuggling and violent Mexican drug cartels.

The Texas plane is still under construction, Cuellar said. If it is not ready by the time the FAA approves its flight, then one would be borrowed from another location, Cuellar said. He would not say where because of security concerns.

Places with unmanned aircraft systems in the U.S. include Arizona, which has three; North Dakota, which has two; and Florida, with one.

Unmanned aircraft have grown quickly in popularity in the defense and surveillance sectors, said Peter W. Singer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the author of "Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century."

Since 2003, the military has acquired about 7,000 unmanned aircraft that are flying surveillance and combat missions in overseas wars, Singer said, and it happened "in a bureaucratic blink of an eye."

And even today, each branch of the military remains eager to obtain more.

"Basically, the Air Force is buying them as fast as they can," Singer said.

Meanwhile, Customs and Border Protection has said it intends to increase unmanned aircraft systems across the country this year, and it expects a complete network of the unmanned planes all along the border by 2015.

Officials boasted about the Predators' effectiveness in a fact sheet published in February 2009. They reported that Predator B planes have flown more than 1,500 hours and contributed to the seizure of more than 15,000 pounds of marijuana and the apprehension of more than 4,000 undocumented people.

But more can be accomplished with the unmanned aircraft, Cuellar said Monday.

Discussions already have taken place about turning the Predator's high-resolution cameras, which Cuellar said could read a label on a bottle of water from 19,000 feet, on to Mexico to track movements of drug cartels.

But there are still a lot of sovereignty issues, Cuellar added, so any advancement of the idea would be up to Mexican government officials.

Additional material from The Associated Press.

© 2010 Statesman

Congressman Gutierrez and Comprehensive Immigration Reform

by John Lawrence

Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez has been on the media recently talking about comprehensive immigration reform. While giving lip service to stronger border protrction, what comprehensive immigration reform seems to mean to Congressman Gutierrez is a comprehensive plan to keep illegal immigrants inside the borders of the US and working at the jobs they now have. Gutierrez will provide these illegal immigrants with a comprehensive plan to keep them here and well employed. He will make them jump through hoops as long as they are not sent back to Mexico. He will make them pay a fine, learn English, make sure they have no criminal background and on and on. Just please don't send them back to Mexico.

What's so bad about being sent back to Mexico? It's not the end of the world. Deportation, which sounds sort of harsh, is just another name for repatriation which sounds a whole lot nicer. In an era of large scale and long term unemployment, illegal immigrants seem to be well employed albeit at low end jobs. Nevertheless, those jobs are jobs American citizens could be doing with the result that government expenditures on unemployment checks would diminish. Nevertheless, while Gutierrez doesn't want any illegal immigrants deported or repatriated, I would favor a case by case approach that would allow some to stay here based on certain criteria while requiring others to go. The fact that illegal immigrants have children born in the US who are American citizens shouldn't in and of itself give the parents the right to stay. If they don't want their family to be broken up, they can take the children with them. They would have the right to come back to the US when they are of legal age. Or they could make arrangements for their children to stay in the US with a legal guardian. What's wrong with that?

Congressman Gutierrez and others promote the myth that the jobs taken by illegal immigrants are jobs Americans don't want to do. Really? If I was long term unemployed, I think I'd take about any job offered to me including fruit picking, meat cutting, construction work or dish washing. I especially would take it if told that, if I didn't, my unemployment benefits would be cut off. Gutierrez wants to perpetuate the myth that only illegal immigrants are capable of doing these menial jobs. But so many college educated people do menial jobs.

Take me, for example. With a BS degree and two Masters Degrees, I am self-employed as a window cleaner and loving it. I didn't need any credentials or licensing or training whatsoever for this job. It's physical work and I learned from experience as I went along. This is not to say that window cleaning requires no talent whatsoever. But mostly what it requires is on the job training. You might say I'm a self taught window cleaner. Many others with college degrees have worked as taxi drivers or waiters and waitresses or cooks or maids or house cleaners. There's absolutely nothing demeaning about these jobs unbless one is demeaned by one's employer. That's why I recommend self-employment to the greatest extent possible. Many former stockbrokers, having seem the error of their ways, are now self-employed as gardeners and landscapers, jobs which a lot of illegals are also employed in.

The idea that menial work in and of itself is degrading is pure hogwash. At a recent windowcleaning convention I noticed the name of one of the companies there was "Unemployed Actors Windowcleaners." Many of the jobs that illegals do are socially necessary work. I feel that I'm contributing more to society as a window cleaner than I was when I worked in the military-industrial complex as an engineer and computer programmer. There I felt I was a parasite helping to make the US a bigger and stronger national security state and consuming resources that could have been better employed making the world a more peaceful and developed place. Mostly the military-industrial complex wastes resources sucking them out of the economy, resources that could be used to repair and improve infrastructure, build schools, hospitals, libraries, public transportation and parks both here and abroad.

The idea that menial work is somehow beneath Americans is absurd. Just as unemployed people should be forced to take menial jobs or lose their unemployment benefits, employers should be forced to hire American citizens or be fined or face jail. The unemployment rate among black youth is 50%, for black men about 20%, for those with no qualifications about 50%, for legal Latino men about 15%. Certain Americans tend to deplore those American citizens who are high school dropouts or who otherwise have no qualifications. How many qualifications do illegal immigrants have who come here to work in the hotel or restaurant or agricultural industries? It's not as if their Mexican college degrees got them ahead. It's time to stop pooh poohing every American citizen who doesn't have a college degree and saying, "Well, if you only went back to school you wouldn't find yourself in such an unemployed situation." For that matter many young Americans with college degrees are also unemployed.

The emphasis insofar as comprehensive immigration reform is concerned should not be, as Congressman Gutierrez wants it to be, on keeping illegals here and keeping them in their jobs. The emphasis should be first and foremost on protecting the border and stopping illegal immigration in the first place. Resources need to be shifted from the fruitless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and redeployed along the border. R&D budgets need to be shifted towards real defense or Homeland Security. Drones should be patrolling the border, not bombing innocent civilians in Pakistan. The 1000 or so military bases abroad need to be brought home and planted along the border. The Pentagon should be devoted to border protection instead of the military-industrial complex as now constituted. Secondly, the illegals that are already here should be dealt with and this should happen in a humane manner even if many of them need to be repatriated to the countries where they do hold legal citizenship.

Death Toll: Natural disasters 29 (and Counting), Man Made Disasters 36, Terrorists 0

by John Lawrence

With the proliferation of natural disasters like the recent Nashville, Tennesee, floods and man made disasters like the oil rig explosion and the West Virginia mine explosion taking a far greater toll on American lives than terrorism, maybe it's a good idea to reevaluate our priorities. Natural disasters are far more likely to account for more casualties going forward than terrorism is, and we should be prepared for them instead of considering each one some kind of rare event or Act of God that no one could have anticipated or predicted. Massive snowstorms and rainstorms which produce massive flooding are becoming normal events due, no doubt, to global warming. Global warming results in more moisture in the atmosphere. In fact water vapor in the global atmosphere has increased about 5% over the 20th century and 4% since 1970. Monster snow storms like Snowmageddon and Snowpocalypse which hit Philadelphia and Baltimore this winter are caused by excess moisture in the air due to global warming. Although global temperatures have increased they are still cold enough to produce snow and ice storms. 

There are also an increased number and size of tornadoes like the one that hit Yazoo City, Mississippi, on April 24 that left 10 people dead. Disaster preparedness needs to be put on a par with anti-terrorism measures because natural disasters are causing far more deaths and destruction of property. And after each disaster, the Federal government has to step in and provide relief. That means that the taxpayers are on the hook for increasing amounts of money which is only borrowed and added to the national debt because not enough is budgeted for these increasingly more common events. President Obama announced after the oil rig disaster that British Petroleum would pay the full amount for the cleanup which is expected to reach $10 billion, but subsequently it has been pointed out that, because of a loophole in the law, actually BP is only on the hook for $75 million and guess who bears the rest of the cost? The US government aka the taxpayers. No wonder national deficits are increasing. While record amounts go to the military industrial complex each year, far too little is budgeted for the events that actually take the worst toll on American lives - natural and man made disasters. While record precipitation is bad for areas prone to flooding, it actually has produced something beneficial for California - large snow packs in the Sierra Mountains from which emanates California's water supply.

As far as man made disasters are concerned, most of them are caused by deregulation. Stricter regulatory standards might have prevented both the mine disaster in the Upper Big Branch mine and the oil rig disaster. Both companies fought off stricter safety standards which would have cost them more money to implement. Massey Energy had a panoply of violations which it managed to evade paying any penalties for or correcting do to loopholes in the law which allowed them to continue violating as long as they challenged them in court. British Petroleum lobbied against systems which might have provided a more fail safe shut off of the gushing oil. Now they will undoubtedly get out of paying for it due to another loophole in the law no doubt placed there by oil company lobbyists.

The Department of Homeland Security, which is responsible for both terrorism and natural disasters, has to have its budget beefed up while at the same time decreasing the military budget. There needs to be a realignment between the US' actual needs for protection and its imagined needs. As natural disasters take an increasing toll, the monetary cost (hundreds of millions in property damage from the Nashville floods alone) needs to take prority over military spending. The cost of cleaning up natural disasters cannot just simply continue to be added to the defict and the national debt. BP will probably tie up their portion of the responsibility for the oil rig disaster in court with the result being that taxpayers will foot most of the bill. Exxon Mobil tied up the Exxon Valdez disaster in Prince William Sound and over 20 years later has not paid the full amount for the aftermath which was court ordered. Exxon Mobil has dragged its feet in paying the costs of damages to local fishermen while making record profits for itself. The original amount of punitive damages to be paid to the fishermen was $5 billion. That amount was reduced to 4 billion, raised back up to $4.5 billion, then cut to $2.5 billion, then further reduced to $507 million. A Supreme Court ruling is expected soon on whether Exxon should pay interest on this payment after 20 years of waiting. BP will likely use the courts to leave taxpayers holding the bag for the spillage in the Gulf especially since we have belatedly found out that the law limiting their liability is on their side.

Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil made record profits in 2007 ($40.61 billion) and 2008 ($45.2 billion) as it continued to shortchange Alaskan fishermen. It also paid no US taxes in 2008.

Last week, Forbes magazine published what the top U.S. corporations paid in taxes last year. “Most egregious,” Forbes notes, is General Electric, which “generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.” Big Oil giant Exxon Mobil, which last year reported a record $45.2 billion profit, paid the most taxes of any corporation, but none of it went to the IRS: Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas. Mother Jones’ Adam Weinstein notes that, despite benefiting from corporate welfare in the U.S., Exxon complains about paying high taxes, claiming that it threatens energy innovation research. Pat Garofalo at the Wonk Room notes that big corporations’ tax shelter practices similar to Exxon’s shift a $100 billion annual tax burden onto U.S. taxpayers. In fact, in 2008, the Government Accountability Office found that “two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005.”

So US corporations (and no doubt BP will follow suit) continue to make record profits while dumping any losses on US taxpayers just as Wall Street bankers did. While other countries such as Norway tax the profits on oil drilling 50% thereby generating profit for the national treasury, the US foolishly just gives away the oil leases so that all profits go to the corporations while the majority of the losses are paid by US taxpayers. No wonder the US has an immense national debt! And global warming produced natural disasters (unbudgeted for) will only continue to get worse adding even more. While the Times Square bomber didn't manage to kill a single person and was caught immediately thanks to excellent police work by the FBI and others not to mention citizen vigilance, which helped to prevent an event which could have produced a number of casualties, the casualties and property damage due to excessive precipitation and high winds continues to mount. Do we have our priorities straight when we continue to allocate billions to the military-industrial complex and paltry amounts to Homeland Security? Homeland Security in addition to being responsible for terrorism and natual disasters is also reponsible for protecting our borders against illegal immigration. Although illegal immigration continues to take its toll on American society, relatively paltry amounts are allocated to it while fantasy wars of aggression continue to be fought abroad. And the cost of supporting over 1000 military bases on foreign soil continues to mount.

The Homeland Security budget for 2010 is $55 billion while the miltary budget is about $1 trillion - orders of magnitude greater. US budget priorities are totally out of whack. While good intelligence and police work has done much to protect US citizens from terrorist attacks, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have only increased their liklihood due to killing of civilians and stoking the fires of resentment towards the US who are considered to be foreign invaders. Protection against terrorist attacks which have killed very few US citizens and caused very little property damage compared to natural disasters primarilyshould consist of defensive not an offensive measures. The Times Square bomber was caught in part due to a fingerprint database. His finger prints matched those left on the Nissan Pathfinder. A national ID card including links to a fingerprint database would do more to prevent terrorism than the combined efforts of the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force because terrorists are just as likely to be American citizens as foreign citizens. And it would identify people in the country illegally at the same time. A national database of student visa holders would have prevented the 9/11 attacks since a lot of them had overstayed their student visas. It can be shown categorically that defensive measures can and will prevent future attacks at a fraction  of the cost of military adventurism which is only increasing their liklihood.

But the real wild card here - and something which can bankrupt the US unless it's figured into the annual budget - is preparedness for natural disasters. Increased moisture in the atmosphere caused by global warming will continue to produce massive rainstorms, snowstorms, hurricanes and tornadoes, increased casualties and billions of dollars of property damage, much of which will be borne privately by American citizens who will become destitute in the process. As if the recession in and of itself weren't enough to devastate the middle class! The US hasn't even recovered from Hurricane Katrina 5 years ago! The US can expect to be devastated by ongoing natural disasters. In order to prevent a fiscal disaster as well we have to budget and plan for them.

How to Halve Unemployment Rate: Replace Illegal Workers by US Citizens

by John Lawrence

In 2005, illegal migrants accounted for about 5% of the civilian labor force, or 7.2 million workers out of a labor force of 148 million. Today the official unemployment rate is around 10% although the unofficial unemployment rate is much higher. The unemployment rate for black youth is around 50%, and for high school drop-outs, homeless and ex-felons approaches 100%. As of January 2010, 6.3 million people were among the long term unemployed, those out of work for 6 months or longer. What to do? With 15 million Americans out of work, half that number could be put back to work replacing illegal immigrants.

Approximately 19% of illegal workers were employed in construction jobs, 15% in production, installation and repair, and 4% in farming. The Pew report also shows that illegal immigrants comprise 24% of all workers in farming, 17% in cleaning, 14% in construction and 12% in food preparation. Within those categories, unauthorized migrants tend to be concentrated in specific jobs: They represent 36% of all insulation workers, 29% of all roofers and drywall installers, and 27% of all butchers and other food-processing workers.

They tend to be concentrated in the hotel, restaurant, agricultural, construction and child care industries. They make our beds, pick our fruit, cut and pack factory produced meat, mow our lawns and tend our children. There's no reason that unemployed Americans couldn't be doing these jobs. In fact employers hiring illegals could be given a choice - replace illegals with US citizens or go to jail. Let them figure out how to do it. If Mexicans can migrate from Jalisco or Chihuahua, Americans can migrate from Chicago to the San Joaquin Valley. And the very segment of the population that has the highest unemployment rate - those with low job skills - are the ones most appropriate to replace illegal immigrant labor which is also mainly taking low skilled jobs.

About 24 percent of immigrants use some form of public assistance compared to 15 percent of native U.S. households. So they are a drag on the public sector in addition to taking jobs that US citizens could be doing. And not all of them have come here to work. In 2006 28% of prisoners in federal prisons were illegal aliens, according to the United States Justice Department. The notion that illegals are simply doing the jobs that Americans don't want to do is a myth. Illegals are concentrated in a few states like California, Arizona and Texas. In other states legal US citizens are doing the same jobs. And it's also a myth that, if US citizens did the same jobs, prices would go up. Studies have shown that there would be an insignificant increase in prices.

One of the stupidest contradictions is that, in an era of high unemployment, businesses can't seem to get enough illegal immigrant labor. What's up with that? US citizens begging for jobs. Jobs go begging for illegal immigrant labor? Immigration reform should put a stop to it and facilitate the hiring of US citizens who are low skilled and having a hard time finding employment. Increasingly they are becoming homeless. A program called the "Transition from Illegal to Legal Labor" Act could be part of a comprehensive approach to immigration reform. And legal Hispanic US citizens make up a large segment of the unemployed. You'd think that they would be the first to get in line behind immigration reform that would give them jobs and send illegal Hispanics packing.

While Obama and most liberals seem to place high value on formal education and college degrees, most of the jobs that illegals perform require neither, and most of the American citizens in desperate need of employment have neither. They need to be provided for and put back to work. The recidivist rate for ex-felons would go down if they could only find jobs when they get out which most of them can't so a life of crime seems to be the only alternative. For many inner city black and Latino youth that seems to be the case also. Gangs and drug dealing offer a greater chance at the American dream than honest labor. These segments of the population need to be given a chance to do an honest day's work for at least minimum wage. Right now businesses that hire illegals are paying them less than minimum wage and, of course, they have no workplace protections or rights whatsoever.

So immigration reform could kill two birds with one stone - lowering high unemployment and getting rid of illegals in low skilled jobs. They would not have the incentive to come to the US illegally if they couldn't get jobs. And if there were still jobs available after replacing illegal labor with legal labor, Mexicans could be brought in legally under a bracero program. This would also save their lives, many of which have been lost navigating the deserts and swimming the American canal. The egregious contradiction between high employment for non-US citizens and high unemployment for US citizens is a ridiculous situation that makes the US a laughing stock in the eyes of the world. Empire decline is caused by a failure to adjust appropriately to changing conditions.

 

If Arizona Got It Wrong, the US Can Learn From This and Get It Right!

by John Lawrence

There is much blather these days about Arizona's new immigration law. According to some accounts it is practically turning Arizona into a police state where any Latino can be stopped, questioned and demanded to "show his papers." Add to this the many hazards of driving while black and being strip searched while Muslim and you have a veritable stew of unwelcome intrusions into the private lives of, well, just about everybody. All of a sudden there is a grave concern over civil rights.

But the concern for civil rights has to be balanced with a concern for public safety. Illegal immigration is inevitably tied in with the drug wars on the border and gang violence in the inner cities, not to mention the unfairness to legal immigrants and the violation of US laws. Terrorism is inevitably tied to the Muslim religion since they have been the primary source of it including the 9/11 fly-in at the World Trade Center. Does this make every Latino a drug runner and every Muslim a terrorist? Of course not. Any more than it makes every black male a pimp. Remember one of the biggest terrorist acts on US soil was the bombing of the Oklahoma Federal building by Timothy McVeigh, a white European descended American citizen. However, I would venture to say that the preponderance of illegal immigrants are Hispanic, the preponderance of terrorists are Muslims and the preponderance of convicted criminals are black. I hope this doen't make me a racist. It's just facing facts.

So as long as the police abide by acceptable procedures, I have no problem with their IDing people in the normal course of their duties. Of course, proper ID should be issued to everyone. That's the state's and the country's responsibility. And there should be guidelines for the police about the conditions under which they can stop anyone. Why shouldn't they be the same as the conditions under which they can stop someone suspected of criminal behaviour? I don't hear anyone complaining that the apprehension of criminals is turning Arizona or the US into a police state. With proper guidelines citizens need not fear that they are losing their civil rights or that Arizona or the US is becoming a police state.

We can no longer afford the luxury of having people in the US walking around without proper ID. That went out the window with the advent of terrorism. If there had been proper checking on the expiration of student visas and those who had overstayed them, 9/11 would never have happened. Also some citizen vigilence regarding flight lessons by non-citizens who weren't interested in learning how to land planes wouldn't have represented government intrusion into people's civil rights in my opinion. Under certain conditions everyone should be willing and able to show ID. Every time the police stop someone now, they demand ID and run it through their computer to do a criminal background check. Why would it be any more onerous to the person who has been stopped presumably under routine and reasonable guidelines to have his background checked for citizenship at the same time? "Show me your papers" can be replaced by "Show me your ID" as long as the state or country provides one and doesn't make people haul their birth certificate around. And checking everyone's ID for citizenship eliminates profiling. You don't want a national ID card? Then haul your birth certificate if you feel that's preferable. And remember Timothy McVeigh was apprehended at a routine traffic stop.

It's high time for the US to have a counterfeit-proof national ID card. You have to balance the problems caused by criminals, terrorists and yes, illegals, with everyone's civil rights, and this balance has to be manifested in an intelligent way, but the increased threats from these quarters demand it. It can be done in such a way as to minimize inconveniences and intrusions to law abiding, legal citizens, non-citizens in the country legally, and non-terrorists, but in an age where crime, terrorism and illegal entry into the US are threats to the welfare of average citizens, precautionary measures need to be taken. 

Homeland Security in all its aspects should be stepped up, and military adventurism abroad should be stepped down. As the "Defense" budget is reduced (actually it's the military industrial fantasy defense budget), the budget for Homeland Security should be increased. Border and port protection should predominate over military adventurism abroad. Defensive procedures should take the place of offensive wars on foreign soil. Intelligence operations should be the main line of defense against domestic and foreign enemies. Intelligence operations have detected and foiled numerous attempts at terrorism on American soil and abroad.

Terorists, unfortunately, are just as likely to emanate from American as foreign soil. They are just as likely to be American citizens as non-citizens. For all these reasons, a national ID card is entirely appropriate. But as the government goes about its business of protecting average, law abiding Americans, it is just as important that it not be overbearing in the process. Efforts at protecting the American people should not infringe on the civil rights of the American people or cause them undue inconvenience. We are already inconvenienced to an extent by the airport check-in procedure and security checks at public events. Most Americans accept this as necessary and reasonable for their protection. They also should accept other reasonable procedures to weed out criminals, terrorists and illegal immigrants. Legal immigration should proceed and be expedited under reasonable guidelines and procedures while at the same time stopping illegal immigration in its tracks.

Some Emininently Sensible Suggestions About Immigration

Pitting Worker Against Worker

Posted on Apr 30, 2010 by Alternet

AP / Bob Bird

By Moshe Adler

Editor’s note: In this May Day special feature, economist Moshe Adler argues that the answer to our immigration, labor and broader economic problems is more immigration and more welfare for all.

All that is wrong with our immigration and labor policies—for the two cannot be separated—is on full display in New York City, where it plays out every day in the city’s small grocery stores. Virtually all of the workers in these stores are undocumented Latin American immigrants. Yet in the adjacent supermarkets, the same jobs are held by American-born workers of all colors. The usual excuse that these are jobs that “Americans won’t do” obviously doesn’t apply. What is the explanation then?

In 2002, then-New York state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer discovered the answer: The small grocery stores pay their workers about half the minimum wage. And what did he do about it? Not much. In exchange for a promise from the grocery store owners not to do it again, he forgave them for their past wage theft. What Spitzer did not do was hire workers to enforce the minimum wage law. (This would have required tax money, and he had his eye on the governorship.) Instead, Spitzer devised a plan by which the merchants would pay for the enforcement themselves. Nothing came of it. Eight years later, the workers in these small grocery stores are still overwhelmingly undocumented immigrants and there is little doubt that their employers continue to steal their wages.

Do illegal immigrants depress the wages of other workers? Of course they do. Supermarket owners will refuse to pay much higher wages than the wages that their competitors pay. Yet the law is not enforced, either against the illegal immigrants, although they swell the ranks of those who seek employment, or against the employers, even though they hire these immigrants at illegally low wages. What is a worker to do?

The academic literature about whether immigration depresses wages is contradictory; some studies find that it does, while others find it does not. But all of these studies suffer from the same methodological problem, which is that interpreting them requires broad assumptions that may not actually hold. These assumptions are significant enough that each camp can continue to dismiss the other. When I present these studies to those of my students who are union construction workers, they laugh them off. They have no use for complex mathematical models when they can drag anybody to construction sites that employ illegal immigrants at low wages—and they know firsthand that this puts direct downward pressure on their own wages. This is what employers tell them. “You are too expensive,” they hear all too often.

Once we admit there is a problem, must we back draconian, Arizona-like measures against illegal immigrants? On the contrary. If illegal immigrants did not need to fear discovery, the small grocers would not be able to pay them illegally low wages. But legalizing immigrants would not end the problem that immigration creates for underpaid workers, because immigration changes the makeup of the work force to the disadvantage of workers with low levels of education in particular.

Immigration does not have any effect on the share of workers with college degrees, regardless of the level of degree. The percentage of workers with a bachelor degree, for instance, is 22 percent among U.S.-born workers, but it is also the same 22 percent in the entire work force, which includes immigrants (both legal and illegal). The percentage of workers without a high school diploma, however, is 6 percent among U.S.-born workers, and 9 percent in the entire work force. This is an increase of 50 percent in the share of workers with low levels of education, an increase that certainly has an effect on wages.

Of course, more workers means greater demand for goods and services and, therefore, more jobs, but here is where balance matters. If the growth in the labor force is weighed against one group, that group will suffer. When the additional workers are paid low wages, the negative effect is larger, because the economic stimulus that poor workers generate is small. In 1950, a worker without a high school degree earned 60 percent of the pay of a worker with a college degree. By 2000, the wage of the worker without a high school degree decreased to just 8 percent. There is no doubt that globalization and the loss of manufacturing jobs had a lot to do with this deterioration, but there is also no doubt that immigration—which is the flip side of globalization—was also a contributing factor.

How can we deal with the imbalance that immigration creates? One way would be to open our immigration doors even wider in order to increase the share of immigrants with high levels of education, and to permit immigrants who are professionals to practice their professions. Many of us have had a taxi driver who was a doctor or an engineer in the old country. With more immigration of the highly educated, the relative position of workers with low levels of education will improve. 

Another way would be to enforce the existing labor laws in order to prevent employers from playing immigrants against citizens, and to add government programs that address the problems that immigration creates for underpaid workers, regardless of whether they are immigrants or not. American workers who walk every day into coal mines put the lie to employers’ claim that there are jobs “Americans won’t do.” But workers must be able to support themselves and their families. The minimum wage law should be enforced—and the minimum wage raised—in order to turn all the jobs that currently only destitute immigrants are willing to do into jobs that can support families.

But the problems that immigration creates can and should also be addressed directly. An example of how to do this is provided by Israel, because there the problem of immigration is even larger than it is in the United States. In the U.S., 39 percent of the population growth in the years 1990-2004 was due to immigration. In Israel during the same period, 86 percent of the population growth was due to immigration.

Of course, the concern in the U.S. is not about all immigrants, just about illegal immigrants. In Israel, on the other hand, virtually all of the immigrants are legal, as long as they are Jews. While this policy is objectionable in all kinds of ways, it’s nevertheless a useful case study in terms of immigration, since the immigrants to Israel are often poor. (Most of them, 80 percent in the years 1990-2004, came from the former Soviet Union.) So how does Israel deal with this influx of destitute immigrants? By letting them have enough time and enough income to find where they are most needed, they don’t add an imbalance to the work force as a whole.

Jews who immigrate to Israel receive welfare for 18 months, which in Israel is not called welfare but “assured income.” Immigrants also get subsidized mortgages if they wish to buy apartments, or rental subsidies for five years if they wish to rent. As for the makeup of the work force, immigrants get free vocational training and university students get stipends. Finally, free health insurance is available to immigrants for six months. The end result is that immigrants are absorbed with little or no opposition from workers: The work force grows, but so does the demand for labor. Some immigrants become construction workers, for instance, but the demand for housing and therefore for construction workers grows as the new immigrants are housed. 

Needless to say, giving these benefits to immigrants only would never be acceptable to workers who are themselves poor. But what if all poor workers got education, training, subsidized housing, and health care? These policies would be costly, but simply ignoring the problem and unleashing the immigrants on the low-wage job market without assuming any responsibility for the consequences is cruel not only to immigrants but also to low-wage, hardworking citizens. The problem of immigration cannot be separated from the problem of labor, and it’s time we dealt with both.

Moshe Adler teaches economics at Columbia University and at the Harry Van Arsdale Center for Labor Studies at Empire State College. He is the author of the book “Economics for the Rest of Us: Debunking the Science That Makes Life Dismal,” recently published by The New Press.

Immigration Reform: Replace Employed Illegals With Unemployed American Citizens

by John Lawrence

Senator Menendez of NJ got on TV yesterday to ask who would pick all the fruit if it weren't for illegals crossing the border. Jeez, Mr. Menendez, haven't you heard that the unemployment rate among black youth is 50%?! He went on about the hotel industry - who would make the beds, who would provide maid service, the construction industry - who would hang drywall, the food and restaurant industry - who would cook our food etc. Now there's a huge disconnect between the people who say that illegal labor is necessary and required in this country and those American citizens who are out there begging for jobs. You don't think that a government program to connect up unemployed American citizens with jobs that illegals are now doing would alleviate both situations? High unemployment and illegals coming across the border to work?

But American employers don't want to replace illegals with legals because illegals have no rights in the workplace. They don't have to pay them minimum wage or give them any other rights or safety standards. OSHA is non-existant for illegals. So there is structural citizen unemployment and structural illegal employment. Businesses that hire illegals would have to be given disincentives for hiring them and incentives for hiring unemployed American citizens because they won't change their hiring habits without incentives/disincentives. They prefer illegal labor and eschew American labor. Illegals are more compliant and not as likely to complain about ill treatment. They would have to pay American citizens at least minimum wage. Politicians float the awful specter that citizens would have to pay $10. a pound for tomatoes! So where is the government program to hook up American citizens with the jobs that illegals are now doing? MISSING IN ACTION.

It seems like such an obvious thing to do but the free enterprise system won't do it of its own accords. They like things just the way they are. If they can't export the job to cheap labor pools abroad, they prefer to let the cheap labor come here - illegally - because of the many advantages to their bottom lines. Jobs could be provided for legal citizens by ramping up government efforts to crack down on employers who employ illegals. After some of them go to jail and have their businesses shut down, the word will get around that hiring illegals is not such a good idea.

But instead of ideas like these and what I blogged on yesterday - a national ID card for everyone that would link to a database that would determine citizenship - the whole illegal immigration debate has already turned into a political football. Democrats don't want to do anything to offend the growing Hispanic legal minority because they consider them potential Democratic voters, and Republicans don't want to crack down on illegal immigration because the businesses that are their constituents want to employ them. Hispanics want to blur the line between legal and illegal immigration and portray the situation as one of racism and discrimination towards all Hispanic immigrants, legal or otherwise. Viewed from a rational perspective, illegal immigrants need to be cracked down on while preserving the civil rights of legal Hispanic American citizens and legal permanent residents. I support legal immigration but not illegal immigration. I would even support a bracero program to provide continuity until illegal labor can be replaced with legal labor.

The first plank in any immigration reform bill should be strengthening border protection. This means a huge increase in the Homeland security budget while at the same time decreasing concomitantly the bloated fantasy military-industrial complex budget. R&D dollars should be flowing to better border and port protection. The budget of the Coast Guard and Border Patrol needs to be increased. Troops should be stationed at bases along the border instead of at 1000 bases overseas. Drones should be patrolling the border instead of bombing civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan. There is much that could be done to curtail the flow of illegal persons and materials across the border in both directions. The illegal drug situation could be brought under control, for example.

At the same time immigration reform should assure legal Hispanic American citizens that their civil rights will be protected. Random and arbitrary searches and apprehensions should not take place. All contact with the police should be for probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Traffic stops should entail not only criminal background checks but citizenship checks for all those stopped, not just for Hispanics. After all aren't we trying to protect against terrorists who are in this country illegally and are probably not Hispanic? That's why a simplified national database is important especially in an era of terrorism. Non-citizens who are legal permanent residents or on student visas or green card holders should be hooked into this national data base so that any checks by police can be expedited and don't result in taking people to jail until they can prove that they are legal citizens or come up with their birth certificates. "Your papers, please" should be replaced with "Your ID, please" and unreasonable searches and seizures should not be tolerated. On the other hand, cracking down on illegal employers and hence illegals caught at the workplace is entirely appropriate. Cracking down on illegals engaged in criminal activities is entirely appropriate. A line has to be drawn between protecting civil rights and apprehending illegal non-citizens.

But turning every situation into a political football makes for better media coverage. Instead of rational solutions, we have a lot of exciting TV guaranteed to drive up ratings. Instead of a calm hand at the wheel we are faced with hyper-bloviating politicians and pundits whose minds are on vacation while their mouths are working overtime as Mose Allison would say.

Immigration Reform: Profile Everybody

by John Lawrence

You know the silliest part of this whole debate over illegal immigration and immigration reform is the bit about profiling. How demeaning, some say, to be stopped by the police and be told, "Show me your papers!" Well, every time I've been stopped by police the first statement out of their mouth is, "Show me your ID!" Now this gets to the crux of the problem. The US in its hodge podge way doesn't have a high tech national ID card linked to a database that would provide not only criminal information about the person but also citizenship information. What I'm recommending is that the citizenship info would just be a standard part of every ID check, period. Then no hassle, no profiling, no complaining from those who would just be too embarassed if they were singled out for a citizenship check. It would all be too simple. Instead we get veritable outrage at the thought that someone would have to prove their citizenship when stopped by police. It should just be de rigeur or standard operating procedure for everyone.

And yes there should be guidelines for the police to prevent abuses on their part. People shouldn't be stopped on the street just for walking their dog. There should be probable cause or reasonable suspicion. I don't anticipate that they would be stopping Hispanics randomly and demanding ID. But surely traffic stops, the main situation in which the public encounters the police should provide routine citizenship checks in a national data base.

And then there are the policemen who say "Not my job." They've got enough to do without having to check for citizenship. Ridiculous. They are the first line of defense out there on the street. They should check for any form of illegal activity and being in the country illegally is a form of illegal activity. What are taxpayers supposed to do - pay twice or three or four times - once for police, once for citizenship checkers, once for the military, once for the National Guard. Couldn't these functions be simplified and reduced into a rational and orderly structure? I say the police are and should be the first line of defense. Then they can turn potential problems over to more specialized people if need be.

Much has been made about the truck driver who was hauled off to jail in shackles by police after he produced a valid driver's license but failed to produce his birth certificate. Of course, this was a travesty. One should not have to carry his birth certificate around with him. But that's where a credit card size national ID card that fits in one's wallet could provide a simple answer to a simple request - "Show me your ID" instead of "Show me your papers." And it would apply to everyone - not just to Hispanics. Hence - NO PROFILING - OK? There is a new wallet size high tech passport card that would do the trick. Everyone should simply be required to have one if another dedicated national ID card is not forthcoming. It has a built-in RFID chip that provides non-duplicatable positive ID linked evidently to a national data base. If this data base is sufficient, then case closed. A similar card needs to be provided for non-citizens who are, however, in this country legally with student visas, for example. But that's part of the national infrastructure that the US has no money for. Instead it will spin its wheels and get outraged over the outrageousness of asking brown skinned people to "Show me your papers!" It makes for better TV and better ratings. If it bleeds it leads, and if they are outraged, they will get on TV. Ask the Tea Partiers.

India has recently done a census and taken a fingerprint from everyone. They will then come up with a national ID card and a national database. That should pretty much solve the problem of who is a citizen and who's not at least for India. Why can't the US do the same?

Now for people who are not US citizens but are in the country legally, a national ID card could be provided for them too. The database would simply indicate that they were not citizens but were in the US legally under whatever situation would apply. Therefore, it would be entirely possible to have positive ID for everyone in the US that would be linked to not only their criminal record (if any) but also to their citizenship status. Obviously, those here illegally would not be able to produce legal ID. The resources are available to make these cards non-counterfeitable, and it would seem in an age of terrorism that it would be a good thing to have this tool available for law enforcement. The police should be in a position to apprehend criminals of any stripe, and I would categorize anyone participating in illegal activity as a criminal. Certainly illegal immigrants are participating in an illegal activity - just being in the US without permission.

This is only one aspect of the immigration problem, of course. Certainly employers employing illegals should be cracked down on as they are being. Witness the San Diego restaurant that's being taken to task. The other element of the situation, and the primary element to be sure, is stronger border protection. The resources devoted to the military should be redirected to protecting the border. Don't tell me that if only a fraction of the military R&D budget were devoted to coming up with ways to have stronger and more robust border protection that it couldn't be done. Instead of more billion dollar planes and battle groups the Homeland Security budget should be augmented. This would be true defense instead of the fantasy defense of spending billons of dollars chasing down rag tag groups half way around the world and getting in league with corrupt dictators.

No one should have to carry their birth certificate or immigration papers around with them. Instead legal ID, preferably a wallet size US passport card or other form of national ID card that would be linked to a data base that would show citizenship status should be provided and required to show for everyone.

Feds Crack Down on Employers Hiring Illegals

Posted: Apr 22, 2010 7:42 AM PDT Updated: Apr 22, 2010 11:05 AM PDT

SAN DIEGO (AP) — A businessman has been charged with paying illegal immigrants to work at his popular San Diego bistro and catering business after federal officials warned him that the workers' names didn't match their Social Security numbers.

The federal grand jury indictment unsealed Wednesday alleges The French Gourmet Inc. received so-called 'no-match' letters from the Social Security Administration in March 2005 and April 2006 but kept employees on board after they submitted new numbers.

The caterer allegedly began paying one employee in cash after he was flagged in a no-match letter and instructed him to get a new Social Security number. His paychecks resumed after he came up with another name and number.

A manager allegedly told another employee "to get a new identity" after he was named in a no-match letter.

Mismatched Social Security numbers has been a hot-button topic since 2007, when the Bush administration proposed that employers be required to fire immigrant workers whose names don't match. The policy failed to survive legal challenges from business and immigrant advocacy groups.

French Gourmet owner Michel Malecot, 58, and manager Richard Kauffmann, 57, pleaded not guilty at their initial court appearances to conspiracy, harboring illegal aliens and false attestation.

Eugene Iredale, an attorney for the caterer and Malecot, said the Social Security no-match letters are "extremely confusing" because they do not go beyond pointing out the discrepancy — a common complaint among business leaders.

"You'd think it would say don't hire this person, fire this person," he said. "All they're saying is, 'We don't have this person on file but we're not telling you what to do. You take whatever action you think is right.'"

Jeremy Warren, an attorney for Kauffmann, agreed.

"You're between a rock and a hard place," he said.

It is rare for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to build cases against employers on no-match letters.

Josie Gonzalez, a Pasadena immigration attorney who is not involved in the case, said the government has used the letters as evidence in other cases. But the employer's response to the letters is much more critical, including whether employees were paid in cash or without a Social Security number after getting the letters, she said.

"Some employers take a more laissez-faire approach and leave it up to the employee to clear up the discrepancy," Gonzalez said. "Other employers are more proactive and demand that the employee clear it up in a given time frame or get fired."

Dan Kowalski, editor of Bender's Immigration Bulletin, said employers ignore no-match letters at their peril. Most workers will admit being in the country illegally when confronted by their supervisors, he said. Often, they simply quit.

"When an employee gets called into HR, they know the jig is up," he said.

The French Gourmet is an institution in San Diego's oceanfront Pacific Beach neighborhood, known for the hundreds of wedding cakes it makes each year. Malecot, a naturalized U.S. citizen, founded the business in 1979.

Malecot donates time, money or food to 150 charity events a year, Iredale said.

ICE arrested 18 employees at the restaurant in May 2008. At the time, it said they were suspected illegal immigrants from Mexico.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press.

Arizona's New Immigration Law

by John Lawrence

The furor about Arizona's new immigration law is much ado about nothing. Why are people so outraged that, when you're stopped by the police, you have to show ID? And that that ID should show whether or not you're a legal citizen? People are so upset that Arizona has "criminalized" illegal immigration. Well, being in a country illegally should be a crime, one of the most serious.

I just don't understand it. I'm for legal immigration. I don't have anything against Hispanics, but I don't think we should fool around with letting people off the hook for being here illegally. It's not fair to legal American citizens, and it's not fair to legal immigrants, Hispanic or otherwise.

And they are trying to polarize this as a left/right issue. It's ridiculous. It's not a left/right issue, but an issue of simple fairness and the right of a sovereign nation to control its borders. I'm for helping the homeless. I'm for getting out of Afghanistan. I voted for Obama, and I was for single payer national health care. But I'm not for coddling illegal immigrants. Arizona finally got tough because the Federal government has been Missing In Action on this issue. And they have a right to act in my opinion because it affects them more than it does any other state.

And then they talk about racial profiling. Here are the facts. Most, if not all, of the illegal immigrants are Hispanic. So it only makes sense that Hispanics would be stopped more often and asked for ID. Asking for ID is racial profiling? Give me a break. You show the cop your ID and then, if you're legal, you're on your way. Every person stopped on the freeway is asked for ID. The only question here is should your ID show that you're a legal citizen or not.

I renewed my passport recently. Now in addition to the Passport book, you can get a card, the size of a credit card, that you can carry in your wallet. If I were an Hispanic in Arizona, I sure would get one of these passport cards to prove I was a legal American citizen and show it to every cop who asked me. Is this asking too much - that everybody carry proof of American citizenship? I don't think so. But to hear some people talk, the world is coming to an end.

I give Arizona credit for cracking down on illegals. After all they have an estimated 460,000 illegals in the state. The Federal government is not doing it. And since most illegals are in fact Hispanics who came over the Mexican border, I don't think asking Hispanics for ID more often than asking other ethnic groups for theirs is racial profiling. But in fact asking everyone stopped by a cop for ID is Standard Operating Procedure if it makes anyone feel any better. From now on this SOP should determine proof of citizenship. That's all.

In India recently they did a thorough census and now they will issue a national ID card. They believe that this will expedite social services and reduce military threats. OMG, sounds like a plan! There it will be very simple to determine citizenship. You simply ask to see the ID card. Here in the US they can't even seem to do the simplest things to solve a problem. The solution is very simple. Issue a national ID card or require everyone to show the passport card on demand by police so that every traffic stop requires proof of citizenship. Presently, every traffic stop is a chance for cops to run the person's ID through a data base to see if they're wanted for any outstanding crimes or warrants. This simply adds an additional thing they are checked for which is most basic - proof of citizenship. I don't understand why that's such a huge thing. It seems very simple and basic to me. But then that is probably why it eludes the US Congress.

ID cards planned for India's 1.1 billion Hi-tech entrepreneur will lead operation to create huge database By Andrew Buncombe in Delhi Saturday, 27 June 2009 India is to embark on an ambitious plan to provide each of its 1.1 billion-plus citizens with a national identity card and has picked an industrialist who helped to spearhead the country's IT revolution to lead the project.   Nandan Nilekani, the entrepreneur who helped the best-selling author Thomas Friedman to coin the phrase and book title "The world is flat", was asked by the government to help to create what would be the largest citizens' database in a democracy. Only China has a larger scheme. The government believes that the scheme, to be finalised over three years, will help in the delivery of vital social services to the poorest in society who often lack – or are at least told they lack – sufficient identification papers. The government has long complained that most of the money set aside for the neediest is diverted as a result of corruption, and it believes the cards could help to tackle identity theft and fraud. At a time of increased concern over the threat of militant violence, the government also hopes that the creation of the scheme will boost national security and help police and law and order officials. The creation of the ID or Unique Identification Number (UID) was a major plank of the manifesto of the ruling Congress Party during the recent election.

And then they talk about the supposed fact that there is a big need for immigrants to supply labor. There's tons of jobs here going begging just because immigrants can't get to them so they have to cross the border illegally just to help us out. Give me a break. With 20% unemployment and six applicants for every available job there's jobs going begging? This is a total disconnect. If the private sector can't connect legal unemployed American citizens with these jobs, then government should do it. How comes there are tons of jobs for illegals but none for American citizens? Does becoming an American citizen disqualify you or overqualify you for a job? This is ridiculous.

And it's not as if there's not a huge problem with a piecemeal invasion coming across the Mexican border. The drug problem has turned into a war on the border. Criminal gangs are exploiting the American nambi pambiness over requiring proof of citizenship. Illegal documents flourish. The new passport cards contain a RFID chip and other devices to make sure they're secure. Having a national ID card which could be the same as the passport card which is the same size as a driver's license by the way, would be a simple and safe method for determining if a person was here illegally. It seems logical, basic and simple. Let's get on with it.

Immigration Reform

by John Lawrence

The Obama administration and Congress will probably try its hand at immigration reform some time soon. As typical, instead of adopting a clear and well thought out policy, we will probably have some vitiated, watered down Rube Goldberg approach to the matter. Here are some ideas which might just go a long way to solve the problem. First, of paramount importance is to stop future illegal immigration. The most powerful nation on earth, it seems, has been powerless to stop the illegal entry of goods and human beings. This doesn't bode well for stopping terrorists with whatever materiel they deem necessary from crossing the border and wreaking havoc and destruction on the American people to say nothing of the millions of dollars worth of illegal drugs, the millions of dollars in cash going south into Mexico and the cross border gun trade which is allowing drug cartels to build up a veritable military which puts the ragtag Taliban to shame. The greatest military in the world is fighting a primitive group in Afghanistan that has to rely on homemade bombs. Not so for the drug cartels in Mexico which have the most sophisticated weaponry including submarines and helicopters. The US thinks nothing of entering a country half way around the world with a full scale military invasion, dropping bombs on civilians along the way. Yet it does nothing to fight a major foe in another country right on its border.

The Boeing company recently was given a paltry sum of money to come up with a virtual fence which turned out to be a joke. This is not to denigrate the idea of a virtual fence which is a good one. However, the execution by Boeing was abysmal. This idea should be pursued with satellite and drone technology. If we can read a license plate in Iraq, we surely can detect warm bodies crossing the border. Helicopters should be used to parachute in intercept teams once incursions have been detected. The Border Patrol and Coast Guard are terribly underfunded. They should be given resources equivalent to the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Those resources should be diverted from the current Defense budget which should be correspondingly reduced. Or better redefine the roles of the military so that border protection becomes the main mission. Secondly US military bases should be built along the border instead of on prime real estate. Camp Pendleton which is located about 50 miles from the border should be relocated right on the border thus freeing up thousands of square miles of prime California real estate for future development which would give a boost to the economy. Locating military bases on relatively undesirable real estate could free up thousands of acres of prime real estate on which they are now  located.

A major portion of the military budget including research and development should be redirected to border and port protection as well as strengthening internal infrastructure to withstand a terrorist attack not to mention the far more likely events of natural disasters. The Department of Homeland Security should be beefed up and the traditional military industrial complex which has become more or less of a massive boondoggle should be beefed down. The resources both in terms of manpower, procurement, and research and development should go into actual defense and not phony defense and fighting wars of aggression against ragtag groups that are illiterate and don't even have driver's licenses. This reorientation of priorities would not only strengthen US defenses, but would also solve the drug problem and put the drug cartels in Mexico, which are a much greater threat to US security, out of business. The idea that criminal operations can cross the US borders (both ways) with impunity is totally repugnant, and we just shouldn't be lulled into accepting it as business as usual. The goal is to improve legal immigration and legal border crossings and to elimiate illegal ones. In fact legal border crossing for humans and materials should be expedited to improve the flow of commerce and to expedite the flow of legal seasonal labor if needed. The pedestrian crossing from San Diego to Tijuana is a total disgrace and needs to be redesigned and rebuilt.

As far as illegal drugs are concerned, legalizing marijuana (but not the other drugs) makes a lot of sense. First, it takes a whole branch of illegal drug smuggling off the table. Second it provides a tax base for marijuana currently grown and sold illegally in the US. It would not only create jobs but provide a revenue source for state and federal government. Then resources can be concentrated on hard drug smuggling and apprension.

But the real question is what to do with illegal aliens that are already in the US, many of whom have integrated themselves into the work force and have established families here. First the law that says that anyone born on American soil is automatically a US citizen should be repealed. Anyone born on US soil to parents that have entered the country illegally should not automatically become a US citizen. The fact that they do complicates the whole problem of deportation. First, illegals already here should be divided into different categories. All prisoners in the US penal system should be deported as well as all single people. For those who have children born in the US who are legal US citizens, there has to be a different approach. To dive into this nasty thicket I would say that some arbitrary dividing line has to be put in place. My recommendation is that all those who have been here less than five years should be deported with the choice being given to leave their children who are US citizens here with relatives or to take them with them. All those who have been longer term residents of the US and who are well established here in terms of jobs, property ownership and business ownership should be given a path to becoming legal citizens. This is a somewhat arbitrary and simplified solution, and probably many situations need to be decided on a case by case basis.

As for the necesity of importing seasonal labor from Mexico because of the jobs that Americans supposedly don't want to do, isn't it laughable in a recession in which many people are out of work that there are any jobs Americans don't want to do? The government should facilitate the hiring of American unemployed and unemployable citizens for these jobs. WPA style programs could set up a work force to pick fruit or whatever the braceros usually do. Programs for unemployable ex-felons and homeless people as well as the chronically unemployed, inner city black youth for example, could be set up to deliver labor to industries that have previously employed illegals. Jobs are needed and workers should be employed right here at home. It's ridiculous to have a huge army of unemployed citizens on the government dole while at the same time American industry is employing huge numbers of illegals. It should be a government policy to transition these industries away from employing illegals and towards employing American citizens who are chronically unemployed. Employers who employ illegals should be sanctioned and fined if not imprisoned while incentives should be given to employ marginally employable US citizens.

So my solution to the illegal immigration problem is five fold:

1) Divert military resources from wars of aggression and military bases abroad (currently upwards of 1000) to extensive programs of border and port protection here at home. This includes research and development and basing military assets along the border. Intelligence operations like the CIA should concentrate on border protection as well as hunting down bad guys overseas. In addition to preventing terrorists from crossing the border, illegal drugs and other illegal imports should be stopped completely and whole illegal industries shut down. This will help not only the US, but it will help Mexico too in that the drug cartels will be eliminated. At the same time legal border crossing and immigration should be expedited.

2) Eliminate illegal jobs in the US by establishing a jobs program that employs chronically unemployed American citizens such as ex-felons, the homeless and inner city black youth and that facilitates the hiring of these people to replace the need for illegal labor. Give incentives to business to hire the marginally employable while fining them for hiring illegals. The government needs to be the facilitator because, left to their own devices, US industry that employs illegals will simply take the easy way out and continue to employ illegals.

3) Change the law regarding anyone born on American soil automatically becoming a US citizen. Babies born to illegals should not automatically become US citizens. This law should be retroactive for some period of time so that families whose parents are here illegally can be deported.

4) Make a judgment call as to who needs to be deported and who will be given a path to US citizenship based on how long a family has been here and how well established they are.

5) Legalize marijuana.